1

Module Detail

Subject Name Political Science

Paper Name Indian Politics: II

Module Name/Title Adivasi Movement

Module Id

Pre-requisites

Objectives To discuss the role of Adivasi Movements in

India.

To know the relationship between Adivasi

movements and the religious leaders.

To analysis the role played by different

Adivasi movements to aware Adivasis.

Discuss in detail role of different Adivasi

Movements like Naga Movement, Bodo

Movement.

Keywords Adivasi, Autonomy, Indian Constitution, Tribal,

Movement.

2

Module: Adivasi Movement

Before the British occupied India, largely, various Adivasi communities used to live in different

degrees of autonomy and interaction with the neighbouring communities in the region (Xaxa,

2010). However, the British government introduced many far reaching changes in the

administration of the Adivasi regions. These changes had a deep impact upon the society,

culture, polity and economy of the Adivasis. The British introduced uniform and modern legal

system throughout India. This system was based on concept of private property and individual

ownership. The Adivasis did not understand this system as their own system was based upon

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Professor Ashutosh Kumar

Panjab

University,

Chandigarh

Paper Coordinator Prof. Sanjay Lodha;

Prof. Rekha Saxena

MLS,University,

Udaipur

Delhi

University,

Delhi

Content Writer/Author

(CW)

Shailendra Kharat Pune University

Content Reviewer (CR) Prof. Asha Sarangi JNU, New Delhi

Language Editor (LE) Professor Ashutosh Kumar, Panjab

University,

Chandigarh

3

communal ownership and production based on community. This resulted in Adivasi’s losing

their control over land. The British government introduced various intermediaries to collect taxes

from the tribal communities. These landlords used to adopt force to collect taxes from the

Adivasis. The Adivasis, in turn came in contact with a set of players, who came from outside the

Adivasi areas in various capacities. These people included the government officials, the forest

officials, and the moneylenders. In a number of tribal villages in Bihar, Bengalm MP, AP,

Orissa, Gujarat the tribal people lost their land to landlords and moneylenders and were reduced

to the position of tenants and landless laborers (Shah, 2004: 99). The government officers, police

and revenue used their position to enslave the tribals and make them work without any payment.

The courts used to be lacking in any knowledge about tribal farming and social systems. These

factors led to the revolts by the Mundas, Santhals, Kols and Bhils in the 19th century (ibid).

This led to various protests and movements by the Adivasis against outsiders or dikus. The

British government started regulating the access to the forest resources only by the government

authorized and sanctioned contractors and traders. This deprived the tribals from using the

various forest products that they were using since many generations. The tribals had an

emotional and cultural attachment with the forest. The government control over forests deepened

the alienation of tribals. After independence too, the government of India continued to deprive

the tribals of the forest resources. The tribals in Garhwal area rose against the forest contractors

during 1930s and 1970s. The tribals in Dang in Gujarat struggled against the Forest Act and

Forest Department during 1980s and 1990s. They were agitating against their deprivation of

forest land and forest produce (Xaxa, ibid: 101).

Thus, the British rule was an attack on Adivasi’s from many sides. It was an attack on their

means of livelihood, attack on their socio-cultural and economic mores. And they resisted this

multi dimensional attack through various movements.

Along with the Christianity, the Hinduism also influenced the tribals. In fact, for many tribals,

going into Hindu fold was assertion of their upward socio-cultural mobility. This process was

also called as Sanskritisation. However, some tribals also feared losing their tribal identity under

the force of Hindu religion. Hence, they started various revivalist movements whereby the tribal

cults and communal tradition were sought to be revived. During 1990s, the tribals in Gujarat, MP

4

and Rajasthan were organized by the Hindutva political forces. This mobilization was intended

to counter the Adiviasi’s conversion into Islam and Christianity.

The tribal movements were often led by those who claimed to be incarnations of God or

receiving messages from the supernatural powers. The leaders like Birsa Munda, Sido and

Kanhu are examples of this. Some of the Adivasi movements were led by the religious leaders.

Such leaders had a great impact upon their followers.

Tribal Autonomy Movement in Chhotanagpur

The Chhotanagpur region had seen a number of tribal uprisings against the British government.

But these were separate from each other and generally lacked a common tribal identity.

However, since the second decade of the twentieth century, a tribal identity started be

constructed amongst the Chhotanagpur tribes through establishment of various tribal

organizations. The Chhotanagpur Charitable Association was established to spread education

amongst the tribal youth. However, it worked towards eradicating differences between the

Christian and non Christian tribes and between various individual tribes such as Mundas,

Oraons, Mahalis and to create a common identity of belonging to the tribal society (Singh, 2002:

269). During 1920s, Chhotanagpur Unnati Samaj was established. Among other things, it

demanded a sub state for tribals within Bengal or Orissa (ibid: 270).

After 1937, when Congress party won substantially in the elections held in the tribal areas of

Chhotanagpur, a number of tribal organisations came together under a common organisation

called Adivasi Mahasabha (ibid). This organisation did not take part in the nationalist movement

and was loyal to the British government. A couple of other forces assisted this consolidation of

tribal identity. First was Bengali-Bihari controversy, in which the Bengali people started feeling

that there interests were insecure in Bihar. And, hence envisioned a creation of a separate state

along with the tribals. The second force was politics of Muslim League. The League thought that

the tribal state would provide them a passage to join the East and West Pakistan. Hence they

supported the Adivasi Mahasabha. However during 1940s, the connection with the Muslim

League was snapped and the Bengal-Bihar issue became much less effective. However, the

Adivasi Mahasabha tried to mobilize the Adivasis belonging to various sections and was having

5

a better political following. It demanded a state out of Bihar. This demand was a step ahead of

the demand for a sub state made in the last decade. The militancy of this organisation was on

display when a number of violent incidences occurred during this period.

The Jharkhand party was formed during 1950s. This party was organizational reincarnation of

Adivasi Mahasabha. During 1950s, the Jharkhand party was replaced for Adivasi Mahasabha

(ibid: 271). This change in the organizational apparatus reflected a larger change in emphasis of

the movement from ethnic tribal identity to the regional identity. The proportion of Adivasis in

the region shown by 1951 census was one of the main causes behind this change. The 1951

census showed that tribals did not form majority in Chhotanagpur and the proportion of Adivasis

shown by 1941 census was highly inflated. This necessitated inclusion of non Adivasis in the

movement in order to sustain its viability. Hence, the change in the emphasis of the movement

from tribal identity to the regionalism. The ‘concept of Jharkhand’ was to include the tribal areas

in the then existing states of Bengal, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. Some members of the

Congress Socialist Party and some money lenders, earlier condemned as outsiders or dikus by

the movement entered the party. Even though the party was on regional lines, the leadership of it

was still dominated by the tribals.

The period between 1952 and 1957 saw a peak in the electoral as well as non electoral support

for the Jharkhand party. However, the State Reorganisation Commission rejected the demand for

separate Jharkhand state. After this, the support for the Jharkhand party started to decline

considerably. Many forces were responsible for this (ibid: 272). First, the socio-economic

differentiation between the Christian and non Christian tribals became sharper in the context of

post independence development process. Second, many state governments in the Chhotanagpur

region gave representation to the tribal leaders in their governments. Hence, a feeling of

complicity crept in amongst the tribal leadership as they got access to power and patronage.

Third, the leadership conflict and paucity of funds did not help the cause of the movement.

After Jharkhand party’s merger in the Congress, for quite some time the Jharkhand movement

remained in the form of many splintered groups. During 1960s, an organization called Birsa Seva

Dal (BSD) was formed (ibid: 276). Its demands were mainly centered on reservation for tribals

in the industrial and administrative institutions. This organization was considered to be

6

dominated by the tribals who were urban and Christians. Initially, some elements from the CPI-

ML also entered the organization, inserting some radical agrarian agenda in it.

Other demands of the BSD included carving out a separate state, driving out the non

Chhotanagpuris from the area of Chhotanagpur. However, the movement indicated the

foregrounding of the tribal interests in that it emphasized the tribal concerns of alienation,

isolation, loss of the lands etc (Arya, 1998: 156). The methods used by the organization to press

its demands included both the violence and peaceful methods including processions of tribals

with bows and arrows, public meetings, celebration of Birsa Munda Day etc. However, the

organization soon started to face internal dissention amongst its leaders. And in the course of

time, it went into oblivion.

The formation of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha in 1973 made the Jharkhand movement more radical

(Singh, ibid: 277). Especially the Santhals in this organization were having a radical agrarian

agenda. At many places, the Santhals, who were mainly laborers and share croppers in Bihar

forcibly harvested the lands illegally controlled by the moneylenders and rich farmers. Also, this

activity was sans any violence. However, violent methods were used at other places where the

crops on the illegally occupied lands were forcibly harvested or these crops were looted by the

tribals. During this movement, efforts to revive parts of tribal culture also took place. Thus,

activities like court proceeding at the local level without taking fees or having advocates,

collection of agriculture and forest produce at the community level took place.

The Jharkhand movement, during this phase, took up some important issues nagging the tribals

(ibid: 279). Thus it demanded that land alienation of the tribals for the irrigation projects and

other development work should be stopped, collection of loan dues from the tribals must be

suspended, government restriction on collection of tendu leaves and other forest produce from

the tribals be cancelled. The tribals raided the places where the government machinery had kept

the tendu leaves and other forest products, they took possession of the government rest house

forcibly and organized procession to the government district and divisional headquarters,

gheroed the government officials.

7

After 1977, when the Janata government came to power at the centre, some important leaders in

the government expressed the desirability of having smaller states in India (ibid: 278). This led to

a reemergence in emphasizing a demand of separate state in Chhotanagpur area. In 1979 All

India Jharkhand Party Conference resolved that if the government fails to create a separate state

of Jharkhand, it would start non cooperation movement against the government. This movement

was supported by different sections of the tribals, even non tribals and all the political parties in

the region. However, this support was not well articulated and the degree of support was varied

amongst those sections. This movement also highlighted the tribal demands associated with the

forest produce (ibid: 281). Thus, the government officers of the forest department were gheraoed

and attacked and government property such as godowns in the forest was attacked. The dharnas

were organized in the various offices of state and central government. The traffic through rail

and road ways was obstructed during the bandhs called by the movement. The Jharkhand Party

declared that their independence would remain incomplete unless tribals were granted autonomy.

During 1980s, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) emerged as a dominant political force in the

region eclipsing the earlier dominant Jharkhand party (ibid: 285). The influence of Jharkhand

party mainly came from the Munda, Oraon, Ho and Santal tribes living in the districts of Ranchi,

Singbhum and Santal Parganas. The JMM had a strong following among Santals and Hos. It got

a significant following from industrial area of Dhanbad, Hazaribagh and from nearby districts in

West Bengal and Orissa (ibid: 288).

The JMM emphasized upon the Jharkhandi vs outsiders dichotomy and asserted the nationality

and self determination of the Jharkhandis (ibid: 286). On the other hand, it sought to align the

struggle for separate Jharkhand with the issues of workers and poor peasants, making its left

leanings clear. The various organizations in the Jharkhand movement were plagued by the

differentiation within the tribals (ibid: 286-287). These differentiations were mainly within the

Christians belonging to different denominations; between various individual tribes, and between

the economically prosperous tribes practicing settled agriculture and the poor tribes practicing

various crafts and shifting cultivation.

The Jharkhand movement fell far shorter from developing into a robust regional movement in the

Chhotanagpur region (ibid: 290). Many reasons were responsible for this. One, several socio-

8

economic differentiations in the region did not help the movement’s cause of mobilizing the

people on regional platform. These differences were between the tribal and non tribal

population—the movement remained dominated by the tribal elements; and between the

Christian and non Christian tribals. Secondly, a loyalist position by the Adivasi movement

during the British rule made a substantial ruling sections in the region see the movement with

suspicion. Third reason was existence of many national parties like Congress, Janata Party, CPI-

CPM in the region. Many amongst these parties adopted pro-tribal positions of various degrees.

This made many tribals to support these parties. The merger of the Jharkhand party with the

Congress at one point of time increased Congress’ strength substantially and decreased the

power of the Jharkhand movement.

The Tribal Movement in the North East

One finds different shades of ethnic demands/movements in the north east India (Misra and

Misra, 1996: 107). The Nagas and Mizos demanded for complete independence from India.

Khasi-Jaintias, Karbi-Dimasas and Bodo were fighting for autonomy in the form of a state within

India. The Assam movement of 1980s was a linguistic and cultural assertion of Assamese against

increasing inflow of Bangladeshi migration into Assam.

The British government considered the north eastern part of India as a remote area (ibid: 108).

This partly made them to use the abundant natural resources in the area for development of other

regions in the country while the north eastern region remained economically backward. This

economic backwardness of the region continued in the post independence period as well. The

railway network remained absent in the north east and the roads are poorly maintained. This goes

to show the utter lack of even basic communication facilities in the region. This contributed into

creation of increasing unrest amongst those in the north east who had political consciousness.

Since the British period down to the post independence period, the tribal areas in the north east

continued to be occupied by those migrated from outside (ibid: 109). This resulted in displacing

tribals on a large scale. Thus, economic deprivation of the area and large scale forced removal of

the so called original inhabitants of the area were mainly responsible for the support of the

masses for the autonomy movements in the north east.

9

Since the very long time during the pre-British period, there has been difference between the

people living in the hills and the people living in the plains of the north eastern areas (ibid: 110).

The rulers in the plains always took great care to protect the autonomy of the tribal communities

in the hills. The British government during 1873 promulgated ‘Inner Line Regulation’ which

empowered the government to declare ‘the Inner Line and to prohibit any subject living outside

the area from living or moving therein.’ According to some British historians like Gait, these

measures were ‘benevolent attempt (of the British) to protect the interests of Adivasis from

interference by non Adivasis.’ (ibid: 111) (Parentheses added).

The inner line regulations and other laws passed by the British government further increased the

division between the hill and plain areas of the north east. This division helped British to keep

the hill areas immune from the forces of Indian national movement.

After independence, Constitution of India contained the Sixth Schedule which had provisions for

creation of Autonomous District Councils in some of the Hill areas. After independence,

inclusion of regions under Sixth Schedule remained one of the important demands of the

movements in the north east (ibid: 112). The newly educated middle class amongst the tribals in

the north east have been leading the movements for autonomy. On the other hand, this class has

adopted the modern way of life and pan Indian culture (ibid: 113). Amongst the tribals small

contractors, traders and suppliers of the goods to the government have articulated the demands of

tribal cultural identity. They have a feeling that they are being exploited economically as well as

culturally by the non Adivasis.

The Naga Movement

The Nagas belonged to Indo-Mongoloid race and constituted into 14 main tribal groups who

speak more than 20 dialects (ibid: 114). Thought the dialects spoken by the tribal groups are not

understood by the other groups, these groups have same religious beliefs and social customs.

Before the British rule, these Naga tribes used to fight with each other. Many chiefs of the Naga

tribes accepted the supreme powers of Ahom rulers of Assam. The Ahom kings, in turn would

respect the autonomy of the Naga rulers.

10

The emergent educated middle class amongst Nagas was opposed to their inclusion in India

during 1920s (ibid: 115). They feared that their traditions and customs would get usurped under

the legal code of future Indian nation-state (Shah, 2004: 103).The Naga National Council (NNC),

established in 1946, was however, demanding for regional autonomy within India, at least in the

initial period after its formation (Misra and Misra, ibid: 116).

Election of Angami Zapo Phizo as President of NNC strengthened the demand for creation of

sovereign Naga state. Phizo visited every nook and corner of the Naga tribes and persuaded the

tribal chiefs into accepting the demand for secession from India. Under Phizo’s leadership, the

NNC gave important position to the tribal council composed of traditional tribal chiefs. Inclusion

of tribal chiefs into its leadership helped NNC to carve out a strong support for itself amongst the

Nagas. The Nagas totally boycotted the 1952 general elections, and a civil disobedience

movement followed it (ibid: 117). In this movement, the school teachers resigned their jobs, the

government agencies were boycotted and people refused to pay taxes. This proved that NNC had

a substantial hold amongst the Nagas and that Nagas were generally favouring the creation of

sovereign Nagaland.

In the meanwhile, the central government sought to crush the Naga movement, viewing it as a

law and order problem. Naga Hills came under military control. At the same time, the NNC

leadership became divided, a section amongst them started to advocate for negotiation with the

Indian government and was in favour of Naga Hills coming under the central government’s

jurisdiction.

The moderate group within the Naga movement wanted creation of separate State of Nagaland

under India’s sovereignty (ibid: 119). The state of Nagaland was granted in 1963. This was

positive step for the moderate Naga group. However, the secessionist group criticized this as a

strategy to create divisions amongst the Nagas.

At the initiative of the Naga Baptist Church, a Peace Mission was created to negotiate between

the Naga separatists and Indian government. Although this body was not able to arrive at any

conclusive settlement, it established communication links between the two sides. During the

11

course of negotiations, the Indian government accepted that Naga issue involves a nationality

question. This position by the Indian government pleased many secessionist Naga leaders.

In 1956, a section amongst the NNC laid down arms. Also a couple of groups emerged out of the

militant sections of the NNC. One of these groups was National Socialist Council of Nagaland

(NSCN). The NCSN declared its aim as creation of separate nation state of Nagaland, which

would be socialist and Christian (ibid: 120). Unlike NNC, which drew support from both

Christians and non Christians of Nagaland and depended a lot on traditional tribal chiefs at the

village level, the NSCN declared that its movement is for creation of Christian Nagaland.

The spread of Christianity, spread of education, the influx of funds from central government,

interventions by the market have been making many changes in the tribal society of Nagaland.

These changes are destroying the old clan life, creating rift between the rich and poor Nagas,

creating stakes for at least some Nagas to continue having federal relationship with India. The

antagonism between the tribes remains an important issue in Nagaland and it was further

encouraged since the creation of the state of Nagaland and Nagas getting the taste of political

power.

The Bodo Movement

The Bodos have been the oldest know inhabitants in the Assam valley. However, there has

always been a give and take between the Hindus in Assam and tribes living there (ibid: 123). The

Bodo peasants in Assam had a rich history of fighting against injustice even during the British

rule. The movement for ethnic and cultural assertion of Bodos started since 1967 when the

contemporary PM Mrs. Gandhi declared that the state of Assam would be reorganized. This

declaration was considered to be a part of a scheme to divide Assam in the background of

Chinese-Indian conflict of 1962 (ibid: 126). In the initial phase the Bodo movement was making

cultural and language based claims rather than demanding separate state.

As the Assam movement entered its last phase, the strife between the tribals and non tribals in

the region widened. This movement went on from 1979 to 1985 and was against illegal influx of

people from Bangladesh into Assam. It had support from both the tribal and non tribal sections in

Assam. However, during the last phase of the movement, divisions appeared between the

12

educated tribal and non tribal leadership. Also when Assam Accord was signed in 1985 and

Assam Gana Parishad was established, the non tribal leaders did not take the tribal leaders into

confidence. This caused snapping of very old connection and interaction between the tribal and

non tribal leadership in the villages of Assam.

The Bodo Sahitya Sabha (BSS), the Assam Bodo Students’ Union (ABSU) and Plains Tribal

Council of Assam (PTCA) wanted that Bodo be recognized as an official language of Assam.

The ABSU submitted 92 demands to the Governor of Assam in 1987. Most of these demands

were related with the culture and language of the Bodos (ibid). Only three demands were related

with creation of separate state for the tribals living in the plains areas of Assam and creation of

district councils for some other tribes in the plains of Assam. However, in the course of time the

ABSU dropped all the other demands and retained only those three political demands.

According to this memorandum, the Mongolians and the Assamese or the caste Hindus were

different from each other and that the Mongolians or the Bodos were the ‘real force’ and the

original inhabitants of Assam. Despite this, the Charter stated, during the Assam movement the

government and media marginalized the Bodos; the Assamese represented the Assam and Bodos

were sidetracked during this Movement (ibid: 126-127).

The ABSU demanded that they wanted to share political power with Assamese in the state of

Assam. In the beginning, the ABSU adopted non violent methods such as bandhs, dharnas, rasta

rokos, rail roko, public meetings and processions. But after 1989, the movement started

becoming violent when trains were attacked; the buildings of the government, the schools and

bridges also became the target of the attacks. The creeping of violence in the movement made

those within the movement who did not approve violence to break ranks. This division soon

degenerated into violent internecine attacks. This contributed to the breaks on economic

development in the Bodo areas.

The differences between the groups who demanded separate state and those who wanted to have

autonomy within Assam for Bodo areas; those who used violence and those who were

moderates; the educated middle class amongst the tribals and the traditional tribal leadership

13

started coming to the surface from time to time. In the course of time, the following for the Bodo

movement contracted substantially.

Generally, the tribal movements in the north east are based on cleavage between the tribals and

non tribals, where the narrative has been that the tribals have been exploited by the non tribals.

However, this narrative puts a blind eye on the emergence of new, wealthy, educated middle

class amongst the tribals. The central government’s intervention of sending money for tribal

areas and development have been usurped by these middle classes who have also become holders

of political power in these tribal societies. Also, the differences between various small tribes, the

Hindu tribals and Christian tribals have come in the way of a unified tribal movement in the

region. Some political parties have suggested for creation of loose federation within Assam

consisting of autonomous units. However, this suggestion flies in the face of existence of nearly

167 linguistic groups in Assam (ibid: 137).

The central government has failed to usher in economic development of the north east region and

to help integrating it in the main stream of the country (ibid: 139). Instead, the central

government had been treating the region as something to be preserved in the museum, or as an

instrument to be used in the political battles for power. The feeling of being neglected amongst

the educated middle classes in the north east has made them demand autonomous state. More

militants amongst these youth have demanded secession from India. However, within the

autonomous regions, the minorities have felt sidelined in the course of time. The complex social

and ethnic heterogeneity in the north east makes this problem even more complicated.

14