Tribes in Post-Colonial Electoral Politics

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

The place of tribal communities within independent India’s political and constitutional framework represents one of the more delicate balancing acts of nation-building — reconciling the need to integrate India’s tribal population into the national mainstream with the equally important need to preserve their distinct identity, culture, and autonomy. With over 104 million people, constituting 8.6% of the national population as per the 2011 Census, India’s tribes were neither to be left as untouched museum specimens nor allowed to be swallowed up by assimilation. This tension shaped Jawaharlal Nehru’s tribal policy, found expression in constitutional and legislative safeguards, and continued to play out through post-independence tribal movements — from struggles for forest rights and against economic exploitation, to full-fledged movements for political autonomy and statehood, such as the one that eventually produced Jharkhand. This article examines the constitutional and legislative framework for tribal welfare, Nehru’s guiding philosophy (the Panch Sheel for tribal areas), the contribution of Verrier Elwin, and the trajectory of tribal movements in post-colonial electoral politics.

Who Constitutes a “Tribe”?

A tribe is a social division in a traditional society, consisting of families linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, sharing a common culture and dialect.
A tribe possesses certain distinct qualities and characteristics that make it a unique cultural, social, and political entity.
Tribal people constitute 8.6% of India’s total population — over 104 million people, according to the 2011 Census.

Post-Independence Measures for Tribal Welfare

Constitutional Measures

The Constitution recognises tribal communities in India under Schedule 5; tribes so recognised are accordingly known as “Scheduled Tribes.”
Article 46 provides that the State shall promote, with special care, the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of society — in particular, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes — and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
Article 243D provides for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in Panchayats.
Article 350 guarantees the right to conserve a distinct language, script, or culture, and provides for instruction in the mother tongue.
Similar provisions exist for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha, State Legislatures, and elsewhere.

Legislative Measures

The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA).
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (the Forest Rights Act).
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which provides for legal services to members of Scheduled Tribes.
The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013.
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs was set up in 1999, following the bifurcation of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, to ensure a more focused approach to the integrated socio-economic development of Scheduled Tribes.

Nehru’s Approach to Tribal Integration

Q. “Nehru favoured the policy of integrating the tribal people in Indian society, of making them an integral part of the Indian nation even while maintaining their distinct identity and culture.” — Elaborate, with special reference to Northeastern India.

Jawaharlal Nehru wanted to integrate the tribal people into Indian society and make them an integral part of the Indian nation, while at the same time preserving their distinct identity and culture.

Two Approaches Before Nehru

Nehru had two broad approaches available to him with respect to India’s tribal population:

The “Museum approach” — leaving tribal people entirely alone, untouched by modern and outside influences, allowing them to remain as they were.
Complete assimilation into mainstream Indian society, even at the cost of the tribal way of life disappearing in the name of “upliftment.”

Why Nehru Rejected Both Approaches

The “Museum approach” — treating tribal people as specimens to be observed and written about — would have resulted in their improper integration into the mainstream.
- Isolation was, in any case, no longer practically possible: the process of penetration by the outside world had already gone too far, making it neither feasible nor desirable to isolate tribal communities at that stage.
The assimilationist approach — allowing tribal communities to be engulfed by the wider mass of Indian humanity through the operation of normal outside forces — was equally flawed.
- It would have led to the loss of tribal social and cultural identity and of the many virtues tribal communities possessed.
- It would also have allowed unscrupulous outsiders to seize tribal lands and forests and interfere in tribal life, upsetting a way of life and culture that had much good in it.

Nehru’s Middle Path: Integration with Autonomy

Rejecting both extremes, Nehru instead favoured a policy of integrating tribal people into Indian society — making them an integral part of the Indian nation while allowing them to maintain their distinct identity and culture.
Two basic parameters underpinned this Nehruvian approach:
- “The tribal areas have to progress,” and
- “They have to progress in their own way.”
Progress, in this framework, did not mean merely duplicating what existed in the rest of India.
- Whatever was genuinely good in the rest of India would be adopted by tribal communities on their own terms, and whatever changes were needed would be worked out by the tribals themselves.
To reconcile these two seemingly contradictory goals, Nehru stood for the economic and social development of tribal people in multiple ways — especially in communication, modern medical facilities, agriculture, and education — and laid down certain broad guidelines to govern policy in this regard.

The Panch Sheel for Tribal Areas

Nehru laid down five basic principles to guide government action in dealing with tribal people, known as the Panch Sheel:

Tribal people should develop along the lines of their own genius, and nothing should be imposed upon them. Their traditional arts and culture should be encouraged in every way, and non-tribals should approach them without a superiority complex — recognising instead that tribal communities have an equal contribution to make to the evolution of the country’s common culture and social and political life.
Tribal rights in land and forests shall be respected, and no outsider should be able to take possession of tribal lands.
Teams of tribal people themselves should be trained to carry out the work of administration and development. While some technical personnel from outside would inevitably be needed, the introduction of too many outsiders into tribal territory should be avoided, and any outside administrators should be carefully chosen for a sympathetic, understanding approach — never considering themselves superior to, or apart from, the tribal people.
Tribal areas should not be over-administered or overwhelmed with a multiplicity of schemes; work should proceed through, and not in rivalry with, their own social and cultural institutions.
Results should be judged not by statistics or the amount of money spent, but by the quality of the character and human development involved.

Nehru’s policy found direct reflection in several constitutional provisions, including:
- Article 46, relating to the promotion of tribal educational and economic interests.
- The special responsibility given to Governors to protect tribal interests.
- Reservation of seats in legislatures and positions in administrative services for Scheduled Tribes.
- The establishment of Tribal Advisory Councils.

Verrier Elwin

Verrier Elwin was a British-born anthropologist, ethnologist, and tribal activist who worked closely with Mohandas Gandhi and the Indian National Congress.
He is best known for his early work with the Baigas and Gonds of Orissa and Madhya Pradesh in central India, and married a member of one of the communities he studied.
He later worked with the tribals of several Northeastern Indian states, particularly the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), and settled in Shillong.
He served as Deputy Director of the Anthropological Survey of India upon its formation in 1945.
After India attained independence in 1947, Nehru asked him to find solutions to the problems emerging among the tribal peoples of the North-East Frontier Agency.
- Nehru appointed him as an adviser on tribal affairs for north-eastern India, and he later served as Anthropological Adviser to the Government of NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh).
The Government of India awarded him the Padma Bhushan — India’s third-highest civilian honour — in 1961.
- His autobiography, The Tribal World of Verrier Elwin, won him the 1965 Sahitya Akademi Award.

Tribal Movements After Independence

Since independence, the Central and State Governments have made incessant efforts to improve the socio-economic conditions of tribals and to sustain the constitutional safeguards granted to them, with special programmes undertaken in successive Five Year Plans aimed at bringing tribal communities on par with other developed sections of society. The results, however, have not been encouraging in all cases.
The establishment of heavy industries, construction of dams, and the launching of development plans in tribal zones have necessitated the displacement of local populations.
- The destruction of forests through tree-felling for industrial purposes has, in turn, threatened small communities of hunters and food-gatherers.
Tribals, especially in central India, reacted against their exploiters through movements directed towards freeing their land from economic and cultural exploitation.
- At the same time, each of these movements placed emphasis on the revitalisation of tribal culture, which had been eroded under the impact of outside influences.
The basic issues underlying post-independence tribal movements in India include:
- Forest alienation
- Training and job deprivation due to the influx of outsiders
- Cultural submergence
- Unbalanced development

Classification of Tribal Movements

By Cause

Post-independence tribal movements may be classified into three broad groups:

Movements arising from exploitation by outsiders.
Movements due to economic deprivation — such as those of the Gonds in Madhya Pradesh and the Mahars in Andhra Pradesh.
Movements due to separatist tendencies — such as those of the Nagas and Mizos.

By Orientation

Tribal movements may also be classified, on the basis of their orientation, into four types:

Forest-based movements.
Socio-religious or socio-cultural movements — for example, the Pathalgadi movement in Jharkhand.
Agrarian movements — such as the Naxalbari movement (1967) and the Birsadal movement (1968–69).
Movements seeking political autonomy and the formation of separate states — such as those of the Nagas, Mizos, and the movement leading to Jharkhand.

The Jharkhand Movement: A Case Study in Political Autonomy

In the case of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand Party, under the leadership of Jaipal Singh, swept the tribal districts in the first general elections.
When the States Reorganisation Commission was formed, a memorandum was submitted to it demanding the establishment of an extensive Jharkhand region, which would have exceeded West Bengal in area and Orissa in population.
- The Commission, however, rejected the demand, on the grounds that the proposed state lacked a common language.
Through the 1950s, the Jharkhand Party continued as the largest opposition party in the Bihar Legislative Assembly, though it gradually declined in strength.
- The most serious blow came in 1963, when Jaipal Singh merged the party into the Congress without consulting its membership.
- In the wake of this move, several splinter Jharkhand parties emerged with varying degrees of electoral success — parties that, notably, were divided largely along tribal lines, a fracture the movement had not previously seen.
In August 1995, the Bihar state government established the 180-member Provisional Jharkhand Area Autonomous Council.
Finally, the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, passed by Parliament, gave rise to the new state of Jharkhand.

Conclusion

The trajectory of tribal politics in post-colonial India reflects the broader challenge of accommodating diversity within a unifying national framework. Nehru’s rejection of both the “museum approach” and full assimilation, in favour of a policy of integration with autonomy, laid the philosophical foundation for India’s constitutional and legislative safeguards for Scheduled Tribes — from Article 46 and Schedule 5, to PESA and the Forest Rights Act. Yet the persistence of forest alienation, displacement, economic deprivation, and cultural submergence in the decades since independence shows that Nehru’s Panch Sheel remained more an aspiration than a fully realised reality for many tribal communities. The tribal movements that followed — ranging from agrarian and forest-based struggles to full-fledged demands for statehood, culminating in the creation of Jharkhand in 2000 — demonstrate how India’s tribal population has continued to assert its political voice within the framework of electoral democracy, shaping both regional politics and the broader national conversation on identity, autonomy, and development.