proving "indigenity," exploiting modernity: modalities of identity construction in middle india

8/13/2019 Proving "Indigenity," Exploiting Modernity: Modalities of Identity Construction in Middle India

1/16

Proving "Indigenity," Exploiting Modernity: Modalities of Identity Construction in MiddleIndiaAuthor(s): Robert ParkinSource: Anthropos, Bd. 95, H. 1. (2000), pp. 49-63Published by: Anthropos InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40465861.

Accessed: 26/11/2013 10:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Anthropos Instituteis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnthropos.

http://www.jstor.org

Thi d l d d f 202 41 10 242 T 26 N 2013 10 27 00 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthroposinsthttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40465861?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40465861?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthroposinst


2/16

B ANTHROPOSIjfj 95.2000:9-63

Proving Indigenity,"xploitingModernityModalities of Identity onstructionnMiddle India

RobertParkin

Abstract The articleompareshree ases of dentityon-structionn middle ndia OrissaandBihar) monggroupsthatwould onventionallye called "tribes." he firstase,comprisinghe losely elated uangndHillBhuiya,ctual-ly involvespparentssimilationnto astesociety,nd theself-identificationf both roupss ati,whichnthis ontextsuggestscaste," ot tribe." he econd ase nvolveshe an-tal,who, fter periodf mitationfcaste ocietyndHinduvalues,have now shiftedo constructingndmaintainingdistinctdentitys adivasi r tribais."he hirdase examinesa campaigny sympatheticocal lite n upportf ribalandrights,hichsusingrtistic otifss a diffusionistnstrumentin onstructingconceptf indigenity."he rticlergueshatmaintainingdistinctdentitys importantor dvancenthismultiplexociety.hedifferencesetweenhe hreexamplesare ocatedmainlyndifferentttitudesomythndhistory.[India, aste, ribe,dentity,ssimilation,ntegration]RobertParkin was awarded isdoctoraten Austroasiaticspeakersn India and Southeast sia by theUniversityfOxford 983.Sincethen, e hastaughtnthropologyt uni-versitiesn Berlin, racow, nd Oxford. e is currentlytemporaryecturert theUniversityf Kent t Canterbury,England. ForpublicationseeReferencesited.

IContemporarynthropologyas largely eenshap-ed by ts nterestnidentities. hesemayrefer o avarietyof social phenomena, uch as ethnicity,nation, eligion, escentgroup, lass, occupation,lifestyle, ender, nd sexual orientation.n India,withwhich ammainly oncerned ere, mportantexamplesare caste and tribe.Withregard o eth-nic identity specially,muchemphasishas beenplaced on thefactthat t is possible to hold more

than ne identityimultaneouslyndtomanipulateand negotiatethem according to circumstance.This in turnhas led anthropologistso appreciatethatmanyof the boundaries hat hey nd othershave soughtto place aroundostensiblydiscreteethnic nd other ocial groupsare actuallyquiteporous, llowing ndividuals o shift etween hem,either emporarilyrpermanentlyBarth 1969). Infact,however, ven n thesepostmodernimes t sprobablymore usual for dentitieso appearfixedand immutable o those who actuallyhold them.This has notstopped nthropologistsrom reatingthem as more or less arbitraryonstructions,positionwhichobviouslyhas thepotential ordis-putewith hose hey rewritingbout cf.Ardener1987:43 f.).But also, Barth's 1969) and Cohen's(1969, 1974) downgradingsf theexplanatorym-portance fculture, ombinedwith he "inventionof tradition" raditionn anthropologybuildingon initial workby historiansn Hobsbawm andRanger [1983]), has led to a furtherendency,perhapsunmeaning ut certainly nreflective,otreat ll identities s beingcreatedvirtuallyut ofnothing. n manyoccasions morerecently,t hasbeen pointedout that here s often ontinuityswell as innovation,nd that owever rastic artic-ular modifications ayseem,they requentlyeferback to somethingn the culture'spast, fonly nreaction to it (cf. Smith 1986; Peel 1989; Blok1992). Peel inparticularomplains, gainstCohenand McDonald (1986), about the"presentism"fthistrend.Though accepting he basic reality fethnogenesis, e arguesthat ethnicities an only

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.242 on Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:27:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/16

50 Robert arkinbe explained n terms fculture ndactualhistory.Besides extending his to other orts of identity,suchas casteandtribe, would also arguethat nexplicit istoricalonsciousness s often t therootofperceptionsf a group'sowndifference,t eastas regards hemodernworld. This is notto say,ofcourse, hat uchhistories reobjectively ccu-rate, nlythat he historian's pistemologies avefrequentlyeenexploited n identityonstruction.Conversely,ack ofsuch awareness nda failure oadoptsuchepistemologiesmay go alongwith heabsenceof a strongenseof dentity. t all events,identitys clearlynot settled tate ut process fcontinuous onstructionnd modification, hichvery probablynevercomes to an end, howevermuchparticular roupsgo on reinventinghem-selves.This s so regardless f the ssentialismndpermanencewithwhich dentitiesre often reatedbythoseholding hem t any particularime.The view that identities re basically con-structedhas also led to a stress on people'sownself-definitionsnpreferenceo attemptingoclassify hem n accordancewithformal eatures(Ardener 972, 1989). Giventhepractical lexibil-ityof identityonstruction,o single, upposedlyfundamentaleatures ever ikely oproduce fullaccountofit. Connectedwith his s a recognitionthatdentitiesrefrequentlyonstructednopposi-tiontoone another: or xample, n ethnicminor-itymaydrawmuchof its identityrom pposingitself o themajority thnicityf the nation tateinwhich t ives (cf.thetitle fMcDonald's bookon the Bretons,"We are not French " [1989]).However,one corollaryof the first rinciple sthat heconstructionf any identitys bound tobe selective, n thatcertainpotential spects areforgottens muchas others reremembered,ndpotential ssociations gnored s much as othersare acknowledged.This is almost inevitable fdifferentdentitiesre todevelopmeansofdistin-guishing hemselves rom ne another. he resultis often losertomyth han ohistory,venwheneventsare actuallybeing phrased n supposedlyhistoricalerms. econdly, elf-definitions not hewholestory, ecauseall definitionsndascriptionsmaybe challenged, n whole or in part,by othergroups, speciallywherethey hemselveswish toclaim the same identitycf. the experienceofimmigrantommunitiesn the UK whenclaimingtobe British).Within particularultural ontext,criteria f plausibilitymay be applied in somesituationscf.Eriksen1993:93 ff.). venwhennotchallengedexplicitly y others, ome claims arelikely oappearcounterintuitivertohaveulteriormotives e.g., theeconomicmotivesof migrants

thatmayunderlie laims to a differentthnicity,as with Polish citizensclaimingGermandescentin orderto enterGermany;Urban 1994). Theseare fundamentallyll indications f the rigiditywithwhichboundaries recommonly xperienced,howevermuch the outside especially academic)observermayfeel able to deconstructheedificesthat uchboundaries reput n place toprotect.These considerations re variously llustratedbytheexamplesof dentityonstructionnmiddleIndia I wish to discuss here. Among numerousidentities hatmightbe isolated as applicable tomodern ndians, he two thathave provedpersis-tently roblematic o theanthropologistre tribeand caste,to whichrespectivelyhe terms divasiand ati areusually ppliedtoday.Adivasi, iterally"original nhabitants,"s a term reated rom an-skritic ootsearlier n thiscenturyo replacetheformeresignationtribe."Bothterms mmediate-ly conjureup aboriginal, rimitive eoples rela-tivelyuntouched ythe mass Hindu-caste ociety- an ideawhich,whetherr not t was everentirelytrue n the past, certainly oes not apply todayforanyof the cases I shall be discussing.Jati san even moreproblematicerm.Meaning iterally"race,kind, tock," t s used both n academic andlegal-administrativeiscourses nd in indigenousself-ascriptionsot only for caste, but also forsubcaste, lan, species,and eventribe tself.Efforts y sociologistsand anthropologistsodistinguish he two objectivelyon the basis offormal eatures avenotbeensuccessful, asicallybecausevirtuallyll thefeatureshosen a special-ist occupation, he predominance f agriculture,whethereopleenjoydirect ccess to and,particu-larmarriageystemsndpractices,cceptabilityfmeat and alcohol,degreeof"Hinduism," ancing,claims of superiorityn relation o othergroups)can be found n both astesandtribesas both reconventionallyegarded).Possiblytheonlycon-creteremark hat an be made in this connectionis thatwherea group s enteringntopermanenthierarchicalelationships ith ther roups n thebasis of a clearlyritualdivisionof labour,thatgroup s less likelyto be considered tribe ndmore likelyto be considered caste. Even thismustbe qualified npart. implyhaving special-ized occupation s notenough, speciallyas thereis also a modern, conomic divisionof labour,extending oday,for nstance, o the manufactureof indigenous rt: one Moslem groupof dhokra-makers1n Santal Parganas,Bihar, s considered1 Dhokrafiguresre brassfiguresmadeby the ost-waxmethod.

Anthropos5.2000



4/16


5/16


6/16

ProvingIndigenity,"xploitingodernity 53nearby, t the next village downstream,Gupta-ganga, which is said to have been placed herebecauseGonasika tself ad been made impure ythekillingof the cow (Nayak et al. 1993: 67 f.).Dash comparesthis veryuntribal ensitivityokilling cow to incest nrespect f ts seriousnessas anoffence oJuang1988: 26), a positionwhichhas apparentlyevelopedquite recentlycf.Elwin1948:47 f.,on theJuang'swillingness o eatbeef,provided tis pursuanto a ritual njunction).Thewholehistoryfthis rea,therefore,s oneof a mixture f Hindu and tribal lements.Cer-tainly n KendujharJuangdo identify ith someconventionallytribal"aspects,such as the dor-mitorynstitutionnd dancingto changudrums,bothof whichcontinue o flourish,ven in someroadsidevillages.Bhuiyahave such features oo,though enerallyhey ollow hem ess intensivelythan heyused to, udgingbyRoy's accountfrom60 years go (1935). Juang ongs,however,whichare generallyconsidered typicallytribal,havemostlyOriyawords.As a result,Roy speculated(1935: 290 f.) thatJuangmayhave borrowed hemfrom he moreHinduizedBhuiya.On theother and,Bhuiyas'relationswithbothJuang nd acknowledged ow castes indicate hattheytaketheir elf-designations a jati serious-ly. Probablynottoo much mportancehouldbeplacedon thefact hat othJuang ndBhuiyabuytheproductsf ocal artisans: s I remarkedarlier,there s an economic as well as ritual divisionof labour in modern ndia, which both groupstakeadvantage f.However,Bhuiyaareparticularaboutnottakingfood fromJuang, houghJuangwill usuallytakefood from hem. n one villagesomeMunda (another roupwith strongdivasiidentity)aid theyhad been brought here o dis-pose ofdeadcattle or he ocallydominant huiya- a classic inter-jatiype frelationship,utmadedoubly nterestingythefact hat texistsbetweentwogroupswho are conventionallyhought f astribes ather han astes. n othervillages,Bhuiyahavegiven andto owcastes, uch as theBhandari(barbers)and Hati (rope- and basket-makers),nthe atter ase so that heHatimaydrum withouthesitation"tBhuiyacommunityestivalsBhuiyado notuse them t life-crisis ites).BothBhuiyaandJuang se the servicesof local Gauda toherdtheir attle, orwhich heygiverice,notcash,andbothuse the servicesof local potters o supplythenewpotsthat refrequentlyequired n ritualoccasions. n Pal Lahera, othewestofKendujhar,theJuang aveacquired omethingfthe rappingsof an artisanati by takingup basketmakings aprofession.

Bhuiya and Juang re also quite Oriyaizedasregardsmarriage nd ritual. n conformity ithOriyaattitudes,here s frequent islike of cross-cousin marriage mong Bhuiya, a change fromthe 1930s, whenRoy reportedt to be standard(1935: 142, 147). Today,suchmarriages re con-sidered"poison" and usually lead to the couplehaving to leave the village and to a mortuaryritualbeing performedorthem,whereafterheyare regardedas dead. Juangare generally essrestrictivend mayeven declare a preferenceorMBD, thought is rarely ollowed npractice cf.McDougal 1963). In bothgroups, here s muchevidenceofOriya nfluencen theways weddingsare conducted,withdowryreplacingbride-pricein some Bhuiya villages.The factthatJuang ndmost otherBhuiya continue o demand a bride-price s a feature hat s notsolelytribal ut haredwithmany ow castes too Parkin1986). The samecan be remarked fpolygyny, idowremarriage,and divorce,all of whichbothgroupsallow. Ineither ase, themostprestigious orm fmarriageis a negotiatedmarriageusing the services of aBrahman.However, s alternativeshetwogroupsrecognizebothexchange marriageon an ad hocbasis, thusavoiding bride-price)nd marriage y"capture," he atter speciallyusually beingseenas a typical tribal"feature.Often ocated in thepastand/ornother illages byinformants someJuangattributedt solely to the Bhuiya, surelywronglycf.McDougal 1963) - it s clearly nthecollective onsciousness f bothgroups:women tmarkets an sometimes e overheard rging heircompanions o start orhome early, est theybekidnappedon the way. However,in most casesthe"capture" s clearly symbolicpiece of ritualwhoseperformanceependson prior rrangementbetweenat least theparents f theboy and girl.Again, this supposedlyquintessential "tribal"practicehas an Oriya name, ghincha, literally"pull" (a reference o theboy "pulling"thegirlin the direction f his village when "capturing"herat somepointoutsideherownvillage).Other rites of passage show Oriya influencein the observation f periods of impurityfterbirth nd death,as well as in ways of removingimpuritycleaningwithcow dung,beingshaved,having clotheswashed, etc.) and the use madeof the services of Brahmans or service castesif possible. Sometimesaffines bondhu)performthese services nstead, utagain this s nota spe-cifically ribal ractice utone foundn low castestoo. Cremation s preferredo burial f the extraexpensecanbe afforded. hildren re often amedafter ncestorsusing rice-in-waterivination,n

Anthropos5.2000



7/16

54 Robert arkin"tribal" ashioncf.Parkin 992:chap.10),butincreasinglyoth roupsreusing he ervicesfHindu aik rastrologer.othgroupslsofollowmany asically riya estivals,uch s Raja andMaghapuri.5

Althoughhere re spirationsor n easierife,and nsome ases for etterducationor ndeed,any ducationt ll), heres noparticulartressneither ndividual r collective elf-advancement.As we shallsee, this s in marked ontrastotheSantal, number f whom reprofessionals(by ontrast,nly neJuang asencounteredhocouldbe saidto havereceived significantegreeof modernducation,n a local Oriya-mediumschool).Althoughillagedormitoriesunctions"clubs" theEnglish erms frequentlysed)andare mportantoJuangdentityspecially,hererenone f he ulturalssociationsf moremoderntype uch s theSantal,Munda, nd Ho have. nshort,espite heromanticizedotions foutsid-ers, here s no discerniblettemptoemphasizetypicallytribal"lementsntheir ulturen orderto claim separatedivasi dentity.IllIf we now turn o Santal,we find radicallydifferentttitudeoquestionsf dentity. largetribe fsomefourmillionswhospeak heirwnMundaanguage,heyrefoundnvirtuallyverystate n eastern ndia as well as in Bangladesh,Bhutan,ndNepal. nOrissa, heyivemostlynMayurbhanjhome fmynformantswith omein Balasore ndKendujhars well as in majorurban reas suchas BhubaneshwarndCuttack.Althoughhey laim a long historyn thearea,they lso have traditionsf having ome fromthewestunder ressurerom ravidian ribesnpre-Mughalimes.n this ontext,hewestmaymeananythingromMirzapurn Uttar radeshto the ndusValley ivilizationo Sumer n theancientNearEast. This conflicts ith cademictheorieshat, n linguisticrounds, hey amefromoutheastsia vianortheastndia cf.Parkin1992: chap. 1). However, here s no way ofconnectinghem s Santal withanyparticular

period r area beforebout1770,when heEastIndiaCompanyncouragedheir ettlementn apreviouslyindu pland art f Biharwhich adbeen vacatedduring recent aminendwhichwas tobecomeknown s the antal arganas.Although astwriters6avenotedSanskriti-zation nd other orms f upper-castemitationamong antal sometimesnvertednddirectedagainst he dikuor upper-casteutsidershem-selves cf.Parkin 992: ) - thisnowseemstobe a thing f thepast.There s now greaterstress n a more xplicit nd exclusive rocessof Santalization,ven moreexplicitly irectedagainst ikus. he writers entionedbovediffersomewhatver he ignificancefparticulartagesin howSantal rrivedt this osition,ut llagreethatmodernantaldentityonstructionasbeenhistoricalrocessnvolvingxplicittrategichiftsbySantal eaders.nitial eactiono British uleandtheirmpositionfHindu andlordsnd owofficialsn tribal rea,with onsequentoss oflandrights ortribais,ed to theexpressionfspecificallyribal,ncludingantal, dentitiesnthe rebellionf 1855-57, thoughts aimswerereformistatherhaneparatist.he uppressionfthis ebellion,esultingn considerableoss of ifeand he emoval f ts eadershroughxecutionrimprisonment,houghlso in some egaland ad-ministrativeeformsnfavourf he ribais,urnedSantalto theadoption f Hindu-casteractices

in an attempto raise status. rans 1965) sawthis s involvingot nly emulation"ut "rankconcessionyndrome,"hats, dmissionySantalof inferiortatusnrelationo localhigh astes,coupledwith strivingor ssimilation.owever,forGautam1977;also Carrin-Bouez986:16f.),thismitation as not ssimilativeut means fbolsteringot nly tatus ut eparatenesshroughthe doptionf what ounteds statusmarkersnthe rea. n otherwords, sort fcollectiveme-too-ism"eveloped,n which tatus nhancementwascertainlymitative,ut lsodirectedowardsprovinghat antalwere s good s anyHindu ndthereforeeserved onsiderations an importantand separate roup n their wnright. here san echohereof Barth' observation1969) thatethnic oundaries ay emoremportanthanhecultural ontent ithinhem: onvergencen thelatter,venwhendeliberatelyeingpursueds astrategy,oes notnecessarilyeduce herigidityof theformerespeciallyn India,wheregroup5 Details fJuangndBhuiyaife-crisisitualsndfestivalscannot egiven ere. hope odevote separaterticleothe xtentowhich he itualife f these roups as beeninfluencedy Oriya igh-ndmiddle-casteractice. eretoo,comparisonsith arlier ourcesRoy 1935;Elwin1948;McDougal1963) ndicatehat his s an increasingtrend.6 Datta-Majumder956;Orans1965;Gautam 977;Mac-Dougall 1977; S.Mahapatra 977, 1986; Carrin-Bouez1986.

Anthropos5.2000



8/16

ProvingIndigenity,"xploitingodernity 55boundaries are foreverproliferating). ll com-mentatorsgree,however, hat,with thegradualintroduction f representative overnment romthe 1930s and of complete nstitutionalemocra-cy after ndependence, furtherhift o non-as-similative antal identityonstructionookplace,involving herevival, evision, nd in somecasescreation fmyths,mythologized istory,eligion,symbolicpractices,drama,dances, and script,process Gautam (1977) refers o as "Santaliza-tion."7A majorelement n this reconstruction s thevarious traditions f a golden age of harmony,peace, innocence, bsence of falsehood,cleanli-ness, and self-determination.n Mayurbhanj, orinstance, here s a traditionf excellent elationsbetweenSantal and the local Raja in theBritishperiod.Certainly,n commonwithkingsall overOrissa, the Raja involved local tribais n stateritual, nd the abolition f thestate nd its incor-porationnto Orissa in 1949 occasioned a furtheruprising y Santal,which tselfhelped stimulateSantalizationn the area. More generally, here sthenotion fChampa, territory,n someversionsa Santalkingdom, aguely ocated somewhere nthe sacred riverGanges,which Santal were onceable todefend nd where heyivedtheir wn ivesin a harmonious nd unadulteratedashion.Thisis linked to the more recognizableoriginmythin which the first antal were born from pairof geese, who were themselvescreatedby theSupremeBeing- variously alled Thakur r SingBonga andgenerally eenas a sungod- whoalsohad to secure and forthem o breeduponout oftheprimordial lood made of earthdefecatedbya worm).8 here s also a claim to be theoriginalinhabitantsf the area, in a strongerense thanwiththeJuang r Bhuiya. Santal always refer othemselvess adivasi and eschewthe abel ati as adiku oncept. antaloften ursue his laim furtherthroughhe associationmentionedarlierwith heIndusValleycivilization nd even ancient umer,theformer eing describedby one informantsa "very clean, beautifulcivilization"- anothergolden age. This also means that Santal regardthemselves s the true ndians,here long beforethediku.A special occupational elationship iththe and s also claimed,one that oth mphasizestraditionalorms f communal griculture eventhough his s now defunctn manyareas - and

is also distinguishedrom he dea of a particularcaste occupationor of any formof divisionoflabour.Greatemphasis s also placed on specificallySantalfestivals,uchas theBaherbonga r flowerfestival eldevery pring,nd on Santaldeitiesorbongas,especiallySingBonga,thesupreme eity,and MarangBum, the "greatmountain," s wellas the sacredgroveof thevillageor aherthanasthe chief site of ritual ife. The whole formsdistinct antalreligion o which n modern imesthe name Sarana has been given and in whichonly Santal priestsofficiate,with an emphasison mixed-gender ancing, ow sacrifice, nd thesacramental onsumption f beef and rice beer- all given up in the "emulation"period as aconcession to Hindu sensitivities as markersof Santalidentity. s Oransremarks1965: 107):"The low rank value of these traits in Hinduterms]makesthem deal boundarymarkers." hisattitudes also evinced nthe nsistence hat antalshould no longerparticipate,ven at a distance,in Hindu festivals uch as Holi and Durga Puja,as they formerly sed to. There is also a focuson the separateness f the Santali language,forwhich n indigenous criptwas devised,Ol Chiki,recently omputerized.9here s a flourishingul-turalmovement, ith Santal cultural ssociationwithvariousbranches, Santalipress theSemletor "Unity"Press), various,generally hort-termattemptsoproduce Santalinewspaper, nd fes-tivals' featuring lays- including ne about Sidoand Kanhu,who werehanged by the Britishforleading the 1855 uprising- and dance displays.Thesefestivals ften aketheform fcompetitionsinvolvingnot only performance ut explanatorynarration,alled saonta sangrai (literally narra-tionof society").Theyhave longhad significanceas an essentialadjunctto boththecelebration f

7 Cf. also Datta-Majumder1956) forWestBengal;Orans(1965)for ihar; .Mahapatra1977)for orthernrissa.8 See Datta-Majumder956: 8, 99; Orans1965: ; Carnn-Bouez 1986: 5-27,formore etailedccounts.

9 Originally1 Chikiwas ntendedor ll tribalanguagesna spiritf divasi nity,ut his rovedoo omplicatedndit s now associated ith antali lone.Theemphasisna distinctanguages somethinghat as been onsciouslyselected s a marker,n contrasto theJuang, hodo notappear oplaceanygreat mphasisn theiranguagenthese ermstheBhuiya,fcourse, ave poken riya oras longas anyone anremember).hisshould ot eadus to forgethatmany f the words heSantaluse forkeyconcepts,eities,tc. areactuallyf Indo-Europeanorigin,ncludingnename or he upremeeity,hakur,and handia, hericebeerof almost acramentaltatus(Datta-Majumder956and Orans 965both iscuss uchterms). hisemphasis aturallynvolves concomitantdegreefforgettingn the art f Santal.

Anthropos5.2000



9/16

56 Robertarkinmajorfestivals10ndpoliticalmeetingscf.Orans1965: 106f.). There is also an annualconferenceof Santaliwritersn Jamshedpursouthern ihar)and a wave of new Santali writingn the fieldofpopular ongs.All of these can be regarded swaysofsupportingnddeveloping raditionsingmodernmedia.In short,every effort s made to constituteSantal as a separatemoral and ritual ommunityin their wn right,n which all are claimedto beequal, includingwomen. This manifeststself nideals notonlyof equalitybut also of cleanliness- indeed,Santalvillages nMayurbhanj resentnotably idy appearance comparedto the typicalIndianvillage- and a pride n hospitality.antalsaythat, nlikeHindus- whose firstuestion o astrangers usually, Where reyoufrom?," eflect-ing an anxiety o fixtheir nterlocuter'status squickly s possible- they remore ikelyto ask,"Have youbeenfed?,"reflectingather stress nequality nd concernforthe ndividual.Certainlytherewas noticeablyess curiosityboutme as astrangern Santalthan n caste,Juang, r Bhuiyavillages.In the last 20 to 30 years,Santalizationhasincreasinglyccommodated tself o the nfluenceof modernity,omethingwhich has also affectedSantal and theirdentity reatly. or S. Mahapatra(1977), this s largely matter f new forms fpolitical leadershipmade available through hegovernment'sanchayatiraj system,which bothdilute and competewith traditional orms. ForGautam 1977), it smore matter f consumerismand engagement n the moderneconomyin allcapacities from ndustrialworkersto civil ser-vants.WhilemanySantal still ive as subsistencefarmers,thers ave entered heprofessions,spe-cially as governmentfficers ut also as doctors,lawyers,bankers,engineers, nd armyofficers,followingsuccessfuluniversity areers. Gautamrealizesfully hatmodernizationctually ids San-talization and therefore radition.n his words(1977: 374 f.),Whenever modernmeanshelpsthem xpress oli-darity,hey ake hatmeans nd ntegratet nto heirculture [which elps]bring ogetherhe scatteredSantals nto single eographicalnit withoutelayormisunderstandingmodernityoesnot reak ownthe antal raditionsnd dealsbutbecomes n asset n

the chievementfunityndprogressnrespecto ocalecologicalndeconomic eeds.Modernization oth challengescasteismand al-lows a freer einto thepromotionf Santaltribalidentity.Modernforms f communicationre ap-plied n the ervice f a traditionalizedultural ndpolitical genda. Indeed,theveryverbalizationftheir dentitys adivasis dependson modernity,in the sense that thisterm s a relatively ecentcoining, fromshortlybefore the independenceperiod.Theyhave thus dopted term nmodernpolitico-academic iscourse n reinventinghem-selves as a tribe.Certainly, f all tribalgroupsin Orissa,the Santalhave been amongthosewhohave mostsought o takeadvantage f theoppor-tunitiesmodern onditions ave to offer, otonlyin terms fthe mploymentnduniversityeserva-tions allowed themunder he ndianconstitution,but also by seekingto tailorconditions o theirown needs by,forexample, preferringducationin English- ather hanOriya-orBengali-mediumschools.According o one nformant,his s so theycan pursueunion-level s well as just state-levelquotas.But if modernism upports radition,t is noless true hat raditionupportsmodernism.his sbecause their radition ives theSantal a strongersense not only of identity ut also of internalintegration. s Orans pointsout (1965: 127ff.),borrowing he culturalmarkersof others eadsto the elimination f one's own and thereforenot only,obviously enough,assimilation ut theeradication finternalolidarity.Maintaining is-tinctivemarkers,ntheother and,givesa basis intheform f a symbolic ocusfor nternalolidarityas well as external dentity. ccording o Elwert(1982), this ncreases hechances for minorityoadvance within he mass societymuchbetter hanassimilation o thatmass societywoulddo, giventhat ssimilation fteneadsmerely o a low statuswithin he atter.

For Santal,therefore,raditionalismnd mod-ernism re insymbiosis, othopposedto thedrifttowards aste assimilation hat s affecting uangand Bhuiya.Modernism s sometimes voked toexplaintraditional alues: forexample,thesym-bolic superiority f the sun over the moon islinkedto the"scientifically roven" ircumstancethat he sun came first. o some Santal,the deaof a modernizing ribe is apt to seem like acontradictionn terms, nd there s some concernthat ducation houldnotdriveoutknowledge ftradition. therssay thatalthough here s vari-ation n standards f livingand lifestylesmong

10 That s to ay, heyrenot partf he estivalshemselves,whichre still erformedy ndividualillagesndepen-dentlynd on differentays to allow mutual isiting),but reorganizedor whole rea to coincidewith hatparticulareriod f time.Theyappear o be a purelypostindependencehenomenon.Anthropos5.2000



10/16

ProvingIndigenity,"xploitingodernity 57Santal, heres no conflictetween raditionalistsand modernizers.asically heSantal trategysoneof trongnternalntegrationased n culturaldistinctivenessnd dvancements a tribe n theirown terms. hisgivesthem he ymbolicmeanswithwhich o resist thers' ttributionsf a loworbackwardtatus o them. uangndBhuiya, ycontrast,ct s if heyccept heirowstatus,venwhile ryingo removetthroughlocalform fSanskritization.IVA nexusbetween raditionndmodernitys al-so foundn the thirdnd lastexample.To thenorthwestfMayurbhanj,n oneparticularistrictof southernihar, antal re ustone of a num-ber of low castesandtribes, fficallyncludingKurmigriculturalistsntheformerategoryndBirhor, unda, nd Oraon n the atter.he areais threatened ith he ntroductionf extensivemining, hich,ocalsfear,will almost ertainlylead to a repeat f thesituationhathas arisenin otherreas,namelyhemassdisplacementfmostlyow-statusroups. neresponseo this sa campaigntressingribal ightso local landin an attempto preventheproposed xploita-tion. hiscampaigns runprimarilyya largelyWestern-educatedocal eliteconsistingf non-andpart-tribalesidentctivists,utwith upportfrom othocal ribaisndoutsideympathizers.tinvolveshe ormulationf n dentityor he reabasedonculturalontinuitiesating acktopre-historicimes lusa disinclinationodistinguishlocaltribes romowcastes nd toarguensteadfor he ribalriginsf the atter.11Thecoreconceptn the ampaigns what nekey nformantalled"indigenity,"hich xplic-itly ndactivelynvokes heUN's recenttress,through special year," n therightsf indig-enouspeoples.The basic postulates that hepresent-dayembersfboth ribesnd ow castesinthis art fBihar redescendedromrehistoricpeopleswho werepresent otonly n this reabut lso in the ndusValley ivilizationfsome

4,000years go.Otherinks reclaimed etweentheespecially aboriginal" irhor still argelya hunting-and-g'atheringroup andAustralianaborigineshroughhe ostulatef proto-ustra-loidpeoplewhomigratedoAustraliarommiddleIndiamillenniago.Ultimately,t s claimed hatthese ndmany therndigenouseoples roundtheworld re thepresent-dayepresentativesf aprehistoriculture hat urvives nbroken,spe-cially npictorialrt s found nboth rehistoriccave sites ndpresent-dayainting especially,as far s this rea s concerned,nhousewalls.Imagesnsuchpaintingsre inkedo those oundon seals nd therrtefactsromndusValleyites.Examplesnclude epresentationsfelephantsndcattle ith eedingroughs,wheeled"nimals,hetree f life, ndzigzag patterns.n addition,hepossibilityhat he ndusValley cript someofwhich svery imilar o ocal rock rt representsa Dravidiananguage, ogether ith he urvivalof one Dravidiananguagen Pakistan, rahui,is linked o thepresencen BiharoftheOraon,speakers f Kurukh,ne of themostnortherlyDravidiananguagesn ndia.However,his heoryofdescentromhe ndusValley ivilizations alsoapplied o theMunda-speakingsur ronworkersfoundn Bihar.The Australianonnections saidto bedemon-stratedy he act hat oth irhorndAustraliansassociaterockart with pirits; he connectionsmade etweenrtisticymbolsnd ribal ncestorsinboth reas; he ommon resencef mages fanopenhand througheing irectlytampednto a surface);heuseofspotsnpaintingsnd of"X-ray" ortraitsthe atterhowing hats con-cealed nside n animal; heAustralianxamplesare seen s representationsfmarsupials);iguresof nimalsn nuprightittingosture,othatheyseemto be leaning gainst wall;andparticularimagesof birds forexample, wls -, yams,andserpents.hevery wo-dimensionalityf thisart,n the enseof an absence fperspective,sanothereaturehat s claimed o connectll thesetraditions.12poradic onnectionsre also made

11 Althoughrobablyo one closeto thesedata willhavedifficultynworkingutwho s being eferredo, havedecided o follow hemodernnthropologicalonventionofaccordingll informants'nonymity,omethinghavealsoextendedo theirxact eographicalocation.orthesamereason,lthoughdrawnot nly ninterviewsndconversationsithnformantsut lsoon iteratureut utbythe ampaign,ome f tpublished,havechosen otto dentifyny f t here.

12 There reother ustralianonnectionsoo.To date,Aus-tralia asprovedo bethe estmarketor oth xhibitionsand ales of ndian ribalrt rom his rea, ue tshighlydeveloped arketor boriginalrt enerally.owever,hecampaignasmadenoattempto contactboriginalthnicmovementsnAustralia,espitehe rehistoriconnectionsthat reclaimed o exist.Thefeelings that heywouldprobablyeject ny hypothesishat heymigratedromIndia sdilutingheir wn laims o ndigenitynAustraliaitself.ronically,ustralianndustrynd nvestmentid salso nvolvednmine evelopmentnone of the roposedcoalfieldshathe ampaigns so concernedbout.Anthropos5.2000



11/16

58 Robertarkinwith otherpartsof the world, such as Sumer,Egypt,Africa, he New World, nd Easter sland.Despite theemphasison indigenitynd tradi-tion,however,t s notthoughthat hetraditionsstatic.Althoughhe xactpurpose ndsignificanceof rock rt an onlybe surmised,t s assumedthatcontemporary all paintingsforma later stage,associated with eitherweddings Khovar art) orharvestsSohrae art).More specifically, he sug-gestion s that caves containing rehistoric ockart wereused in prehistoricimes forpartof theweddingritual, he married ouple spending hefirst ight ftheirmarriagehere. hisprovides netymology orKhovar,consisting fkho, "cave,"plus var, "married ouple." Later, eaf canopies,called in Santalimarwa,and sacredgroveswereused,as they till retoday n some tribal arts fBihar ndOrissa.Later till, monggroups omingunder ndo-Aryan nfluence,hemarwa became amud-builttructure,o theoutsidewalls ofwhichKhovar art was thenapplied. It is not clear howKhovar rtwas transmittedn theperiodwhen eafcanopies and sacredgrovessupposedlyprevailed.One possibilityould be Santalgoddnaortattoos,in which imilar magesoccur.Whatevermayhave happened n thepast,thebasic technique f Khovarpainting oday s close-ly connectedwiththe construction nd renewalof mud-built ouses,whose exterior nd interiorwalls have to be regularly efurbished ithmud,new paintings eingmade at each refurbishment.If there s to be a wedding n thehouse,thisalsonecessitatesnew painting.13here are two basictechniques.One is finger aintingdirectly n tothe new mud walls. In theother, he wall is firstcoveredentirelywith layerof thickblackmud,which is allowed to dryhard. Then a layer ofwhitemud is appliedto thesame surface,which,while stillpartlywet,is incised with a comb orthe fingers o produce the required patternbyallowingtheblackundersurfaceo showthrough.The increasinguse of cementhouses today isthreateninghe continuityf this tradition. s aresult, ampaign upportersave initiated tepstotransferhe econdtechnique romwalls to a thickform fpaper.Fingerpaintings now also beingdone on paper.The relatedSohrae stylehas alsobeen transferredo three-dimensionalorm n theshape of plywood figures utwitha fretsaw,ndthere re plans to do thesame in porcelain.Bothtechniques re claimed to reflect hedynamicna-ture f the raditionnd thefact hat t s capableof

internal evelopment singmodern echniquesndmaterials.The developments re elite-drivennddependon that lite's access tomodernity,houghindigenous rtists ave willingly aken hemup.14This art,especially the painting, s primarilyexecutedby women n all groupsthatfollowthetradition,houghSantal men may decoratetheirown homes npreparationor he rrival f a bride,and the main artist roducing lywoodfiguressmale. There is recognizedvariation n styleandqualitybetween rtists,nd the ndividualnature,not only of artistsbut of the art theyproduce,is reflectedn the beliefthat t is impossibletoproduce opiesevenof one's ownwork.However,it is also thought hat the painting s not reallybeing done by the artistherselfbut that t is amanifestationf the sacred. t maybe because ofthis hatwomen efer o their rtnot s painting utas likna, iterallywriting"n Hindi.Campaignerslink thenear monopolywomen have in thisartto "thematriarchalature f the Khovarmarriagetradition,"the superior ole of womenin tribalsociety,"the importance f theMother Goddessand theprevalence fbride-priceverdowryn themarriage rrangementsf thesesocieties.At firstsight, his "matriarchal"omplex seems to havelittlebasis in thepresent-dayociological realityof thesegroups,who are uniformlyatrilinealndescent, uccession o office nd most nheritance,and who maintain ome ritualrestrictionsn the

13 Oraon ngageKurmi rtistsodo wedding aintingsorthem,ut heyhemselvesepaintalls ollowingfuneral.

14 Oneof hemostnterestingevelopmentsrefigures,ftenofbirds,madeoutof discarded ubbishicked pin thestreetsnd ocal markets.heprincipal aterials toffeepapers,which re wrapped ound shellof cardboardfilledwith icehusks;wrappersrom clairs,which reseen as the most uperiorweet, re reserved or thehead as themost restigiousart f thebird. he tail sgenerally ade utof discardedassetteape.The wholeartefact as described o me as a culturaltatement,nthat hosewho maketheseobjects re not themselvesin a positiono buythe sweets hewrappersriginallycontained.y salvaginghediscards fcivilization,heyarenonethelessble toproducen artefact hichheyanconnectwith cultural nd artisticraditionupposedlygoingback millennia.t thereforeecomes traditionthat ancopewith ndeven survive more ragilendevanescent odernity.odernitys put n itsplacebybeingubordinatedotradition.ampaignerslsostress,sa significantevelopment,edras rquiltsmade rom ldsilk aris npreparationor hefirst-bornfnewlyweds,which an often e predictedorDecember ndJanuarydue he revalencefweddingsnMarch ndApril.magesmostlyemainraditional:nly heBirhor whohave nlytaken p paintingnrecentimes,houghhey laim heirancestors ereresponsibleor ocal rock rt seem tointroduceodernmagestrucks,uses, adios)nto he rtthey avebegun ocreate n thewallsofthedilapidatedhouses he overnmentormerlyrovidedor hem.Anthropos5.2000



12/16

ProvingIndigenity,"xploiting odernity 59activitiesof women,thoughnot as much as inupper-caste ociety.15n effect,patrilinealitysrepresenteds characterizing olely the middle-andupper-caste ocietywhich s seen as intrusivein thisarea, so that t can be contrastedwiththesupposedlymatriarchalspectsof low-status,in-digenous" ociety.16What,more trictlypeaking,seems to be significant,owever, s the fact thatknowledge fpaintings transmittedromgener-ationto generation rimarilyia women,whetherfrommother odaughterr frommother-in-lawodaughter-in-law.Of greater upport o thecampaignersmaybethe fact that ribal nd low-castepractices s re-gardsmarriage end oconvergecf.Parkin1986).Indeed, nother trando the ampaign s the laimthatthere s reallyno distinction etweentribesand low castes since both are equally indigenousto thearea, despitetheirdifferentiationn law.17One argumentsed is that hepresent-day sur,Munda-speakingow caste of ronworkers,rethedirectdescendents f the ancientAsuras,whoseslag heaps can stillbe seen in the area.18 imilarclaims are made with reference o theverycon-tinuityn artistic tylewith the prehistoric ockartof the area. In the case of the Kurmi,whodominateKhovarart,there s the solid evidenceof a change in their fficial lassification arlierthis entury: "tribe" ill1931,theywere enrolledon the "Other Backward Classes" list in thatyear,wheretheyhave been ever since (theyaretherefore ota "Scheduled"oruntouchable aste).Accordingly, ampaigners egularly escribe thisgroupas a (sometimes semi-Hinduized" r "In-do-Aryanized") ribe,despite theircurrentegalstatus.19his is tocounter overnmentttemptso

limit indigenity"otribes nly ndtoexclude owcastes- who form substantial roportionf thepopulation f thearea - from t.The governmentargues thatgroups ike the Kurmican thereforemake no claimsregardingndigenous and rights,and that s they re reallyHindustheybelongtothe mainstream opulationand should logicallyline up behindthe generaldemand for "devel-opment."Campaigners nsist,plausiblyenough,thatmost of the low castes actuallyhave tribaloriginsand should, therefore,njoy indigenousland rights n the same way. The ambiguities fthetribe-caste istinctioneallyservebothsides,butthey lso prevent resolution, s there s noneutral odyofopinion o turn o:as we saw atthebeginning, nthropologistsave largelygivenupseekingcredible ociological bases to distinguishthe two. The government,herefore,tresses helegal position,while thecampaigners akerefugein an evolutionary heory foriginspredatinghearrivalof Indo-Aiyans,Hinduism, r themoderneconomy.The latters' theories thus recall essentiallyhistorically ocusseddiffusionistnd evolutionistideas that have long been out of fashion inacademicanthropologyndarchaeology,t east smonolithic xplanationsof social life. Althoughcampaigners laim to be agnostic boutdiffusion,references re frequentlymade to migrationsasfrom India to Australia) and prehistoric radelinks (to explain,forexample, the discoveryofIndus Valley seals in southernBihar). Perhapsmore ignificants thepostulate f an evolutionarycontinuityfculture own themillennia, riginal-ly fairlyuniform, ut now survivingn pocketssurrounded y later, intrusive, ominant,moremodern,and less desirable culturalformations,of which the locally significant epresentatives"Indo-Aryan" n culture and Hindu in religion.Little redence s givento alternativexplanationsthatmightbroadlybe considered tructuralistrinvolve independent nvention, houghthere issome recognition hatsimple geometricdesignsmightoccur anywhere,without ulturecontact."Genetic intuitions" re occasionally invoked naccounting or hepostulated ultural ontinuities.

15 Thus mong uangndBhuiya, omenannotlough,owseeds, rfire widdens.mongantal heyrebarredromthe acred rove uringhecentral haseof ritualsikeBarabonga, hen acrificesreperformedythemarriedmen f thevillage.16 Anotherontrast entioneds that forest illages referanimalmages,while hosentheplains referloral ndabstractnes. ohrae rharvestrt,which cannot iscussindetail ere utwhichs seen sa developmentfKhovar,usesmore loralmages.17 Santal lso make his ssociationynot pplyinghe ermdiku o otherribesnd owcastes ut nly oupperastes,which regenerallylacedn the ategoryf ntrudersntothe rea.18 Theyare excluded rom rgumentsoncerningictorialart,whichhey onotpractice,avingmainlyrick-builthouses.19 Althoughhe Kurmi re dominantn bothKhovar ndSohrae rt, therowcastes reactive oo, speciallyhePrajapatirpotters;neof hemost ighlyegardedrtistsis a Ganju.Artistsromhe ranks f those fficialdom

classifiess Scheduled ribes renoticeablyhin n theground:none ist eenbyme, here ere hree unda ndtwoBirhor ut f total f53 namedrtists,wo-thirdsfwhomwereKurmi. hecampaign ivesmoneyuptoRs500 month)o ocal artistso that heyanpursueheirartwithoutay-to-dayorries,nd t alsohelps hem nfinancialndpractical ayswith amily roblemslegalcases, llnesses,tc.).Anthropos5.2000



13/16

60 RobertarkinIn general, owever, hese heories re heldvague-ly and somewhat nconsistently.he detail goesintodemonstratinghe existenceof a worldwidebut stillpartly urviving rehistoriculture.Thisis ultimatelyeen as more mportanthan howinghow itarose,spread, nd sustained tself.VThe three ases examinedhere all show variationsin dentityonstructionntheregional thnograph-ic setting, houghthere s also one key aspectcommon to themall, namely theirreliance onwhat are in effectorigin myths, cknowledgedor otherwise.Although laimingto be the firstinhabitants n earth,Juang nd Bhuiya both re-ject the abel adivasi givento themby outsiders,whether overnment,nthropologists,r romanti-cally inclined ourists. heirpreferenceorbeingconsideredatis is consistentwith their eadinessto accept influences romthe caste-basedOriyasocietyand their endency o enterrelationshipswith othergroupswhichentail a ritualdivisionof labour and therefore ierarchyn the Indiancontext in otherwords, n incipientocal castesystem. antal,by contrast, ave a clear view oftheir dentitys adivasi, though hey lso regardthemselves s Indians pproximatelynthemodernsense ofnationhood. here s nonecessary ontra-dictionhere, ince,as adivasis,they lso claim tobe thefirstndians.Bothexamples lso show thatdentityonstruc-tion s a processoften astingdecades, if it evercomes to an end at all. This is most graphical-ly illustrated y Santal,who asserted a separateidentityhrough eriodicuprisings n the Britishperiodbut ater ried anskritizations a strategy.Thisstageeventually ave waytoSantalization,nwhich specifically antal values and institutionswere stressed and distinguished romthose ofHindu-castesociety. In the current eriod, thisseparate identityhas both drawn supportfrommodernism nd been used to support t in anyavailableform,he maingoal herebeingto obtainthemostadvancededucationpossible in order osecureentrynto tableandwell-paidprofessionalemployment.Santalcertainlyxemplify lwert'stheory hatinternal ntegrationhrough he maintenance fa separate culturaltradition n a strongsenseaids advancementn a modern ompetitiveocietywithout he necessityof assimilating o that so-ciety. ndeed,assimilationwouldprobablyhave anegativempact.A strongdentityrovides set of

cultural oals- includingdvancement as well asa meansthrough hich hesegoalscanbe acquiredin a basicallyalien mass society. t also providesa model for, s well as of, advancement.Juangand Bhuiya,by contrast,eem to be headingforassimilation o theOriya-dominatedaste societythat surrounds hem. n doing so, theyare alsovirtuallyuaranteeinghemselves continuedowstatus n that ociety.This is of a piece with heirown lack of a strong, eparate dentity.20Yet it can be seen thatJuang nd Bhuiyatoohave a historyotheirdentityonstruction. henfirst ncountered y British fficersn the 1850s,theJuang nparticularwerefarmoreobviouslytribe,with heir eaf dressesand subsistence ormof livelihood.Since then ontactwithOriyashasincreased, ut t has produced n imitative atherthanseparatist esponse.This is not to denythepersistence f traditional eatures n JuangandBhuiya culturewhich would conventionally econsidered"tribal."However,neither rouphassoughtto use these to reinvent hemselves s atribe n thewaythat antalhave.21Santal,Bhuiya, ndJuang ll use originmythsin constructingheirvarious claims to indigeni-ty,mythswhichsharecertain haracteristics ithmany thers rom round heworld, n thegeneralsenseofdeclinefrom state funityndharmony,as well as havingthe moredetailed features fincest nd a primordiallood. antal also link heiroriginmyth,nvolving irth rom pairofgeese,withvariousmyths f a goldenage of innocence,harmony,nd unity,whentherewereonlySantal(or at least, only in the heartland),whether nSumer,the Indus Valley,or Champa. Only laterdid otherpeoples and therefore isunity ntertheworld,bringing vil with t. The Juang ndBhuiya myths ooeach describe n original eriodwhenonly theywere on the earth s one people(separately, ince the twomyths onflictwith ne

20 Elsewhere,have uggestedhat t s possible o see thiscloser nvolvement ith hemasssocietyn part s aprocess fpeasantization,hich antal reable to resistpreciselyecauseof their trong elf-identitys a tribeethnicallyeparate rom hatmass society. ee Parkin(forthcoming);lso L.K. Mahapatra1965);MacDougall(1977:313ff.).21 TheBhuiya ave ctuallyong een ecognizeds a "Hin-duized" ribenreligiousermsspecially,ut heyontinuetocount s a "tribe"onetheless,ossiblyecause fwheretheyive, heirlose association ith heJuangnd theirswiddenarmingnd ontinuednterestnhunting.oday,they rea basically griculturalati (intheir wnterms)comparablen this especto theKurmi,houghhe atterarenowofficiallylassifieds a castenot tribe.Anthropos5.2000



14/16

Proving Indigenity," xploitingModernity 61anotherstowho rrivedirst),houghheres essexplicitmphasisnunityndharmony,nd hereareothermythshat xplainhow other eoples,and thereforeivision,ame nto heworld seeElwin1948:124f. for Juang xample).Thelast case is also, n someways, hemostcomplexn that t dealswith heconstructionfan identityor, ot imply y,those o whom trefers.hemain gentsnthis ase have a stakeinthese ommunities,ut hey lsohave nterna-tional onnectionsnd spirationsn terms ftheircampaigngainstminingnd forndigenousandrights.ven houghhey o not egardhemselvesas academics,heirrguments akereferenceoacademic ositions, hich, owever,re notfullyworked ut nd nany ase arethepositionsf anowquitedistantndgenerallyejected ast,notthose ftoday.neffect,hese deashelpprovidethe ampaign ithts wn riginmyththe spectit shareswith he woother ases.Liketheotheraccounts,his ne derives uman istoryrom nageofharmonyndunityoneworldwiderehis-toriculture),nd t lsoshows ow he omingfdivisionnto heworldinthe orm f he rrivalfnon-indigenousnd more owerfulutsiders,.e.,high-caste indus, ndiangovernmentfficials,andforeign-sponsoredndustrialevelopers) asbrought,ndeeds bringing itht,division,vil,and destructionin the form f theminingndthedisplacementfentire opulationstcreates).In this ense, t is onlyone ofmany xamplesofessentially ythologicalisions fan originalunity eingpresentedn historicalerms,ndeed,as history.22Althoughmanyof theseexamplesrefer oEurope,with ts strong evelopmentf "real"history,hey ll havea generaltructuralimilar-ity o thehistoricalriginmythsfJuangtheRusi story), huiya origin rom hesoil), andto someextent antal thegoosemyth), ot tomentionumerousther eoples.Theydiffernthat heres a real f oftenmperfectlyecordedhistorygainstwhich heir laimsto be historycanbe measuredndshown o be selective. hisis notthecase for historical yths,incetheydo not blurtheboundaries etweenmyth ndhistoryndcanthereforee taken t face value.Butwhenndigenousccounts raw nacademichistoryndother isciplinesnconstructingheirarguments,heymmediatelyxpose hemselvesothevery ormalcademic racticefcontestation

anddebate. hismay e anathemao heirreators,who are likely o regarddentitys axiomatic,especiallyf hatdentitys at the ame ime nderthreat or ther easons. his can leadultimatelyto disputes ver thecustody f knowledge.nmodern imes, nthropologistsave learnt hatsocialknowledges not lways egardeds a freegoodbutas somethingequiringrotection,estothersppropriatetanduse it mproperly.23hisclearlyffendsnepart f the raditional esternvalue ystemthoughotWesternractice,nthelight f theprotectionf commercialnd statesecrets),venthough,n constructingrgumentsabout dentity,quallyWestern orms f episte-mology,iscourse,ndproofmay einvokedforexample, seudo-historicalxplanations).No doubt he therriginmythsreheld o betrue ytheir espectiveustodiansoo.However,it is interestinghatwhile thecampaignersnsouthern ihar see their rgumentss entirelyhistorical,uangndBhuiyahave notsoughtoinvoke modern orm f historyn supportftheirlearlyhistoricalriginmyths.his spartlybecausetheyhave notreallybeen exposedtomodernistoricalpistemologies,ut lso becausetheir asic strategys one of assimilation,otseparation,orwhich heydo not need a sepa-ratehistory.antal ome somewherenbetween,as some versions f their riginmythsmakereferenceoknown istoricalircumstances.l-though ther ersions re essentiallyhistorical,in their nd the southern iharcases exposureto modern ducation as created n awarenessof historicalpistemologieshich as been usedto varyingxtentsn constructingeparateden-titiesbased on supposedly istoricalraditions.Indeed, o a very argeextent,heconstructionofseparatedentitiesn these wo casesdependspreciselyn thishistoricalwarenessnd use ofhistoricalpistemologies.hevery electivityfthesehistories,owever,eads their reators outilizetandard ythicaltructuress a frameworkfor heirccounts,pparentlyithoutheir eingaware f t. ronically given hat uchmythicalstructuresre a widespreadf notuniversallobalphenomenonthis lsorepresentsontinuityithhistoryndvery ossibly rehistory.owever,tis surely ot continuityhatwas anticipatedythe onstructorsfthese raditions.

22 Cf. Chapman (1978) on Scotland; Nagengast 1991) onPoland;Herzfeld1992) on Crete;and Tonkin t al. (1989)passim.

23 Cf. Chapman (1978); Salmond (1982); Strathern1987);Ardener 1987); McDonald (1989); and from an earlierera,Schieder 1960) on post-warGerman efugeesn WestGermany.Anthropos5.2000



15/16

62 RobertarkinThere is also a gradationn termsof culturaldivergence rom he mass society s we go fromexample to example. Juang nd Bhuiya are verymuch ssimilated ulturally, hile the Bihar cam-paigners re determined o distinguishhemselvesfromHindu-castesocietythrough n insistenceon tribalism nd "indigenity."After rying othseparation hrough oliticalcampaignsand rebel-lions, and emulation, n modernhistory, antalhave ultimatelyhosena middlepath,one whichcombines ndigenity ith cautious and selectiveacceptanceof what themass societyhas to offerundermodern onditions. his s not osaythat helatter wocases are free fthevalues andpracticesof thedominant aste-Hindu ociety,onlythatseparate dentitys constructedhrough onceptsof "adivasintss"or"indigenity" hich ften laimthat certainelements of the mass society's dis-coursewereoriginally heir wn.24 n bothcases,however,the claim to culturaldistinctivenesssrooted n a clearhistoricalonsciousnessnvolvingan original ndigenity,oth of whichJuang ndBhuiya ack,despitethemoreobviouslymythicalaccounts of theirorigins. It is this differencethatunderlies hedifferent odalitiesof identityconstructionn this area.

The datapresentedere rebasedprincipallyn field-work arried ut n these reas between anuaryndApril 998. would ike othankrofessor. K.Nayak,Dr. Bonarii amall,and Messrs. GautamChoudhu-ry,Saroj Pradhan,nd ShyamHembromall of theDepartmentf Anthropologynd SpecialAssistance,UtkalUniversity,hubaneswar,rissa), s well s Mr.GurubaMurmunMayurbhanjnd Dr.Kuntala ahiriDutt, f theDepartmentfGeography,niversityfBurdwanWest engal), or heirnvaluableelp. alsoacknowledge ith ratitudeinancialupportrom heQR fund ftheAnthropologynit t Oxford rookesUniversity.

24 There s notthe paceto documenthispointhere, utalmostnymonographntribal roups illpointhis ut(e.g.,Datta-Majumder956;Orans1965 on Santal).Oneexample: heBihar ampaignerslaim hatmuch ftheRamayana,ne f hemajor indumyths,as ribalrigins,e.g., he toryfSita, hehero'swife. he mportancefreincarnationn Hinduismmay lso owe much o tribalprecedentscf.Parkin992: hap.11).

References itedArdener,dwin1972 Language, thnicity,nd Population.ournalftheAnthropologicalociety fOxford: 125-132.1987 "Remote reas." omeTheoreticalonsiderations.n:A.Jacksoned.),Anthropologyt Home;pp. 8-54.London:Tavistock ublications.ASA Monographs,25)1989 SocialAnthropologyndPopulation.n: E. Ardener,TheVoice f he rophecyndOtherssays; 09-126.Oxford: asil Blackwell.Bailey, . G.1961 "Tribe"nd "Caste" n India.Contributionso ndianSociology: 7-19.Barth, redriked.)1969 Ethnic roupsndBoundaries.heSocialOrganizationof Social Difference.slo:Universitetsforlaget.Behuria,N.C, andD. C. Kuanr eds.)1986 Kendujharistrict azetteer.hubaneshwar:overn-ment f Orissa.Blok,Anton1992 Reflectionsn"Making istory."n: K.Hastruped.),Other istories;p.121-127. ondon: outledge.Carrin-Bouez, arine1986 La fleurtl'os. Symbolismetrituel hez es Santal.Paris: ditionse 'EcoledesHautes tudes nSciencesSociales.Chapman,Malcolm1978 TheGaelicVisionnScottishulture. ondon: roomHelm.Cohen,Abner1969 Custom ndPoliticsnUrban frica. StudyfHausaMigrantsn YorubaTowns.Berkeley: niversityfCaliforniaress.1974 Two-Dimensionalan.London: outledgendKeganPaul.Dash,J.1988 RoleofKinshipn he ocialLife fJuangsfKeonjharDistrict,rissa.Adibasi 8/2: 2-28.Datta-Majumder,abendu1956 TheSantal. StudynCulture-Change.elhi:Govern-ment f ndiaPress.Elwert, eorg1982 Probleme erAuslnderintegration.esellschaftlicheIntegrationurch innenintegration?lner eitschriftr Soziologiend ozialpsychologie4: 17-31.Elwin,Verrier1948 Notes ntheJuang. an n ndia28: 1-146.Eriksen, homasHylland1993 EthnicityndNationalism.nthropologicalerspec-tives. ondon: luto ress.Gautam,Mohan K.1977 The Santalizationf the Santals. n: K.David (ed.),The New Wind.Changingdentitiesn SouthAsia;pp. 69-381.TheHague:Mouton ublishers.

Anthropos5.2000



16/16

ProvingIndigenity,"xploiting odernity 63Herzfeld, ichael1992 SegmentationndPoliticsn he uropean ation-State.Making enseofPolitical vents.n: K.Hastruped.),Other istories;p. 2-81. London: outledge.Hobsbawm,ric, ndTerence angereds.)1983 The nventionfTradition.ambridge:ambridgeni-versityress.MacDougall, ohn1977 Agrarianeform s. Religious evitalization.ollec-tiveResistanceoPeasantizationmong heMundas,Oraons,ndSantals, 858-95.Contributionso ndianSociology1:295-327.McDonald,Maryon1986 CelticEthnic inshipnd theProblem fBeingEn-glish. urrentnthropology7: 333-341.1989 "WeAreNotFrench "anguage,ulture,nd dentityinBrittany.ondon: outledge.McDougal,Charles1963 The Social Structuref the Hill Juang. nnArbor:Universityicrofilmsnternational.Mahapatra, . K.1965 From hiftingultivationoAgriculturalist.he PauriBhuiyan Transition.dibasi : 31-48.Mahapatra, itakant1977 Ecological daptationoTechnologyRitual onflictandLeadershiphange.The SantalExperience.n:K. David ed.),The New Wind. hangingdentitiesnSouthAsia;pp. 57-368.TheHague:Mouton ublish-ers.1986 ModernizationndRitual.dentityndChangenSantalSociety. alcutta: xford niversityress.Nagengast,arole1991 Reluctantocialists, uralEntrepreneurs.lass,Cul-ture,nd he olish tate. oulder:Westviewress.Nayak,Radhakant, arbaraM.Boal,andNaborSoreng1993 TheJuangs. Handbookor evelopment.ewDelhi:Indian ocial nstitute.

Orans,Martin1965 The Santal.A Tribe n Search f a GreatTradition.Detroit:WaynetateUniversityress.Parkin,Robert1986 Comparative undaKinship.A Preliminaryeport.Oxford niversityapers n ndia 1/1:9-74.1992 The Munda of Central ndia. An Account f TheirSocial Organization.ew Delhi: OxfordUniversityPress.forthcomingheConceptfEthnicitys AppliedoSelected"Tribal" ommunitiesnOrissa. n: P. K. Nayak ndR.Parkineds.),Rethinkingrissa.Society, ulture,andHistory.Peel,J.D.Y.1989 TheCultural ork fYoruba thnogenesis.n:E. Ton-kin,M.McDonald, nd M.Chapmaneds.); pp.198-215.Roy, aratChandra1935 The HillBhuiyas fOrissa.With omparativeoteson thePlainsBhuiyas. anchi:Man n ndia.Salmond,Anne1982 Theoreticalandscapes. n a Cross-Culturaloncep-tions fKnowledge.n: D. Parkined.),Semantic n-thropology;p. 5-87. London:Academic ress.Schieder, .1960 Die Vertreibunger Deutschen us dem Osten alswissenschaftlichesroblem. ierteljahrshefter Zeit-geschichte: 1-16.Smith, .1986 TheEthnic riginfNations. xford: asil Blackwell.Strathern, arilyn1987 TheLimitsfAuto-Anthropology.n: A.Jacksoned.),

AnthropologytHome;pp.16-37.London: avistockPublications.Tonkin, lizabeth,MaryonMcDonald, ndMalcolmChap-man eds.)1989 HistoryndEthnicity.ondon: outledge.ASAMono-graphs,7)Urban,T.1993 Deutschen Polen. GeschichtendGegenwartinerMinderheit.nchen: .H. BeckVerlag.

Anthropos5.2000

proving "indigenity," exploiting modernity: modalities of identity construction in middle india

Documents