42

CHAPTER 2

THE TRIBE AND SOCIAL FORMATION:

CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK

2.1 Introduction

The study is based on two major concepts, the „tribe‟ and „social formation‟

and both of them requires some logic explanations. The tribe and social formation

are not usually interrelated phrases because the tribes keep an isolated life pattern

and they select the places for their settlement either in the midst of forest or in the

outskirts of forest. They have been following the traditions and practices, to a

great extent, unfamiliar to the mainstream societies. They disliked to entertain the

strangers and always kept a distance from them. It is our duty to give ideological

base to the concept of social formation and then only we can define and confine

the migration of tribals to the outlook of modernity, by comparing them with the

sophisticated life style of non-tribes. This chapter is an attempt to find out the

meaning and concept of tribes and social formation.

2.2 The Tribe: Concept

The first Census Report of Bainee during 1891, the then Commissioner for

Census of India, included all Tribal groups as „Forest Tribes‟ and kept the same

under the sub-heading of Agricultural and Pastoral Castes. They were again

classified as „Animists‟ or people following „Tribal Religion‟ in the Census Report

of 1911 by Gait; as „Hill and Forest Tribes‟ in the Census Report of 1931 by

Hutton. The Government of India Act 1935 and the Census Report of 1941 used

the term Tribe. There are many terms used in the place of „Tribe‟ almost

synonymously as Adivasi (Original Settlers), Girijan (Hill dwellers), Vanyajathi

43

(Forest Caste), Adimjati (Primitive Caste), Janajathi (Folk Communities) and

Anusuchit Janajathi (Scheduled Tribe). In the recent past, Anthropologists and

others have come across of a new term, i.e., „indigenous people‟ to a large extent,

similar to that of the term „native‟ used during the colonial period.1

A proper definition of the „Tribe‟ is not given in the Indian Constitution.

Colonial Masters used many terms liberally for the communities under their

control, such as, „Primitive‟, „Savage‟, Barbarous‟, „Uncivilized‟, „Pre-literate‟,

„Non-literate‟, „Little community‟, „Aborigine‟, „Native‟ etc. All these words have

inferior meaning and revealed the negative attitude of the colonial masters towards

their subjects. Any community which is listed in the schedule of the Constitution

as a tribe is known as the „Scheduled Tribe‟ in India. The Tribe is an

administrative product, marketed by the Social Scientists.2

The term aboriginal is usually applied to the tribal population of India, not

in any derogating sense but to indicate their being the earliest among the present

inhabitants of the country. The English word „Tribe‟ is derived from the Latin

„Tribus‟, one of the three political divisions or patrician orders of ancient Roma.

The idea of „Indigenous people‟ is an issue of considerable contention in

India today. Administrators, politicians, workers and even scholars widely used

the term to refer to a certain category of people. They hardly felt any unease in the

use of native equivalent of their term, viz., „adivasi‟.3

1 Behura N.K. & Nilakantha Panigrahi, Tribals and the Indian Constitution, Jaipur:

Rawat Publications, 2006, p.6.

2 Kumar B.B., The Tribal Societies of India, New Delhi: Omson Publications, 1998,

p.2.

3 Bijoy C.R., “Adivasis Betrayed: Adivasi Land Rights in Kerala”, Economic and

Political weekly, December 18, 1999, p. 3589.

44

2.3 The Tribe: Definitions

Most definitions of the tribe are confusing ones. There is haziness and the

definitions are never precise.

According to Risley, “the tribe represents a collection or group of families,

bearing a common name, which as a rule does not denote any specific occupation,

generally claiming common descent from a mythical or historical ancestor and

occasionally from an animal, but in some parts of the country, they are held

together rather by the obligation of blood fond than by the tradition of kinship,

usually speaking the same language and occupying or chaining to occupy a

definite tract of country. A tribe is not necessarily endogenous, i.e., it is not an

invariable rule that man of a particular tribe must marry a woman of that tribe”.4

In the words of D.N. Majumdar “A tribe is a collection of families or group

of families bearing a common name, members of which occupy the same territory,

speak the same language and observe certain taboos regarding marriage,

profession or occupation and have developed a well assessed system of reciprocity

and mutuality of obligations. A tribe is ordinarily an endogamous unit, is a

political unit in the sense that the tribal society owns a political organization”.5

According to Dubey, “the tribe generally refers to territorial communities

living in the relative isolation of hills and forests. The comparative isolation, in

some ways, has kept them apart from the mainstream of society in the country.

Partly because of this isolation, and partly because of their limited world-view,

characterized by lack of historical depth (resulting in the early merging of history

into mythology) and the overall tradition orientation, they are integrative themes

4 Herbert Risley, The People of India, Delhi: William Crooke, 1969, p.62.

5 Majumdar D.N., Races and Cultures of India. Bombay.(1958). p.355.

45

and a special cultural focus gave them a separate cultural identity and they often

possesses latent or manifest value attitude and motivational systems which are

remarkably different from those of the other people”.6

Mandelbaum has defined the tribe as “The social unit larger than the local

group with which the families of a local community almost always have a sense of

belonging”.7

Roy Burman has tried to define the tribe under demographic parameters

and has used demographic indicators for the purpose.8

According to Jacobs and Stern, “A cluster of village communities which

share a common territory, language and culture and are economically interwoven

is often designated a tribe”.9

In the opinion of R. N. Mukherjee, “A tribe is that territorial human group

which is bound together by commonness in respect to locality, language, social

codes and economic pursuits”.10

The definition of tribe by Dr. Rivers is quoted by D. N. Majumdar, which

says, “A tribe is a social group of a simple kind, the members of which speak a

common dialect and act together in such common purposes as warfare”.11

6 Dubey S.C., Approaches to the Tribal Problems in India, Journal of Social Research

Vol. III No.2, 1960, p.11.

7 Baum Mandel D.G. and Shapiro H.L., Social Groupings in Man, Culture and Society,

New York: Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 295.

8 Burman Roy B. K., Tribal India: New Frontiers in the Study of Population and Society,

Indian Anthropologists, 1978, p. 80.

9 Kumar B. B. op.cit. p. 3.

10 Mukharjee R. N., People and Institutions of India, Mussorie, 1960. p. 43.

46

The meaning of the word „tribe‟ according to the Oxford Dictionary is, a

race of people, now applied specially to a primary aggregate of people in a

primitive or barbarous conditions, under a headman or chief.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, the term tribe usually

denotes a social group bound together by kin and duty and associated with a

particular territory, members of the tribe share the social cohesion associated with

the family, together with the sense of political autonomy of the nation.12

According to Ralph Linton, “In its simplest form the tribe is a group of

bans occupying a contiguous territory or territories and having a feeling of unity

deriving from numerous similarities, in culture, frequent contacts and a certain

community of interests”.13

To Lucy Mair, “The tribe is an independent political division of a

population with a common culture”14

. To G.W.B. Huntingford, “A tribe is a group

united by a common name in which the members take a pride by a common

language, by a common territory, and by a feeling that all who do not share this

name are outsiders, „enemies‟ in fact”.15

L.M. Lewis defines “Ideally, tribal societies are small in scale, are

restricted in the spatial and temporal range of their social, legal and political

relations and possess a morality, a religious and world-view of corresponding

dimensions. Characteristically too, tribal languages are unwritten and hence, the

11 Majumdar D. N., op.cit. p. 336.

12 Marshall Gordon, Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, New York: Oxford University

Press, 2004.

13 Hasnain Nadeem, Tribal India Today, New Delhi: Herman Publications, 1983, p.13.

14 Ibid., p.15.

15 Ibid., p.17.

47

extent of communications both in time and space is inevitably narrow. At the same

time, tribal societies exhibit a remarkable economy of design and have a

compactness and self-sufficiency lacking in modern society”.16

In India, near 10 percent of the population comprises of the tribes. The term

„Adivasi‟ is widely used to depict the different ethnic groups as „Adi‟ means

original and „Vasis‟ means inhabitants of the country.17

Gandhiji called the tribes „Girijans‟ and Das has referred them as „sub-

merged humanity‟.18

According to Imperial Gazetteer of India, “A tribe is a collection of families

bearing a common name speaking a common dialect, occupying or professing to

occupy a common territory and is not usually endogamous, though originally it

might have been so”.19

Article 336 (25) of the Constitution says that Scheduled Tribes or tribal

communities or parts or groups within such tribes or tribal communities which the

president may specify by public notification under Article 342 (1).20

The tribal communities‟ consultation held at Shillong in 1962 declared, “A

tribe is an indigenous unit speaking a common language, claiming a common

16 Ibid., p.18.

17 Indian Journal of Youth Affairs, Vol. 9, No.2, July-December, 2005. p. 5.

18 Rao Shankar C. N., Sociology: Primary Principles, New Delhi: S. Chand and Co.Ltd.,

2004. P. 616.

19 Hasnain Nadeem, op.cit. p.12.

20 Rao Shankar C.N., op.cit. p.817.

48

descent living in a particular geographical area, backward technology, loyalty

observing social and political customs based on kinship”.21

Following are some of the features of the tribes given by various Indian

writers.

1. A definite territory or who claim to occupy a common territory.

2. A common name.

3. A common dialect.

4. A common culture.

5. Behaviour of an endogamous group.

6. Common taboos.

7. Existence of distinctive social and political systems.

8. Full faith in their leaders.

9. Self-sufficient in their distinct economy.22

Paddington say that, “A tribe is a group of people speaking a common

dialect, inhabiting a common territory and displaying a certain homogeneity n

their culture”.23

Prior to the colonial era the use of a generic term to describe people was, on

the whole absent. Even if there were terms such as „jana‟ and against „jati‟, they

did not have the kind of generality that the term tribe came to acquire during the

colonial and post-colonial period. The use of the term, „tribe‟ to describe people

21 Tripathy S.N. (ed.), Tribals in India: Changing Scenario, New Delhi: Discovery

Publishing House, 1998. p. 338.

22 Vidyarthi L.P and B. K. Rai, The Tribal Culture of India, Delhi: Naurang Rai Concept

Publishing Co., 1977, P.167.

23 Mathur P.V.R., Tribal Situation in Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala Historical

Society, 1977, p.23.

49

who were different from those of the mainstream civilization has been viewed as a

colonial construction. There is no doubt that the use of the category „tribes‟ to

describe people so heterogeneous from each other in respect of physical and

linguistic traits, demographic size, ecological conditions of living, regions

inhabited or stages of social formation and level of acculturation and development

as put forward by the colonial administration. The term tribe since the 16th

century

has referred to groups or communities, which lived in primitive and barbarous

conditions of living. The pre-colonial depiction of the tribal people in India as

dasyus, „daityas‟, „rakshasas‟ and „nishadas‟, when juxtaposed with the mid 19th

century western racial concept. To the colonial administrators cum ethnographers,

tribes came to be constituted as people who practiced animism or tribal religion.

Tribes are addressed by their tribe names, which generally correspond with their

distinct language or dialect. But, this aspect of the labeling of tribes has been

overlooked in sociological discourse on tribes.24

A tribe is a political unit in the sense that the tribal society owns a political

organization, either recognizes hereditary tribal chiefs or the several sections of it

are welded in to a territorial group rule over by class chiefs of hereditary kings.25

W. J. Perry observes, “Tribe is a group speaking a common dialect and

inhabiting a common territory”.26

D. N. Majumdar, in another occasion defined tribe, “A tribe is a social

group with territorial affiliation, endogamous ,with no specialization of functions,

ruled by tribal officers, hereditary or otherwise, united in language or dialect,

24 Sarin Madhu, “Scheduled Tribes Bill 2005 – A Comment”, Economic and Political

Weekly, March 26, 2005, pp. 1363-64.

25 Singh R. (ed.), Social Transformation of Indian Tribes, New Delhi: Anmol Publications

Pvt. Ltd., 1999, p.18.

26 Ibid.

50

recognizing social distance with other tribes or castes without any social

obligation attached to them as it lies in the caste structure, following tribal

traditions, beliefs and customs, liberal of naturalization of ideas from alien

sources, above all conscious of homogeneity of ethnic and territorial

integration”.27

Kinship ties, common territory, one language, joint ownership, is political

organizations, absence of internecine strife has all been referred to as the main

characteristics of the tribe. It is not easy to define a tribe or a tribal conclusively

and any standardization of this regard is very difficult to obtain.28

T. B. Naik presents some criteria for a tribe. They are:

1. A tribe to be „tribe‟ should have the least functional interdependence

within the community.

2. It should be economically backward: which means:

a) A full import of monetary economics should not be understood by

its members.

b) Primitive means exploiting natural resources should be used.

c) The tribe‟s economy should be at an under developed stage; and

d) It should have multifarious economic pursuits.

3. There should be a comparative geographic isolation of its people from

others.

27 Kumar A. Tribal Development in India, New Delhi: Sarup and Sons, 2002, p.8.

28 Ibid, p.9.

51

4. Culturally, members of the tribe should have a common dialect which

may be subject to regional variations.

5. A tribe should be politically organized and its community panchayat

should be an influentional institution.

6. The tribe members should have the least desire to change. They should

have a root of psychological conservatism making them strict to their

old customs.

7. A tribe should have customary laws and its members might have to

suffer a law court because of these laws.29

These tribes might be undergoing acculturation, but the degree of

acculturation will have to be determined in the context of its customs, gods,

language etc. A very high degree of acculturation will automatically debar it from

being a tribe.

Ehrenfels elaborates the following features of the tribe:

1. A community however small it may be, may remain in isolation from

the other communities within a geographical region.

2. We should delete the following words from the definition of a tribe,

“economically backward”, “primitive means” and “under developed

stage” and substitute them by the word “self-sufficient”.

3. We agree with the definition of geographical isolation, though not every

tribe is an isolated unit of people.

4. Common dialects or languages are typical for tribes.

29 Ibid, pp.10-11.

52

5. A tribe need only always be politically organized not have a

community Panchayat.

6. The members of the tribe have a feeling of belonging to a group, the

existence of which is valuable.

7. Almost all tribes have customary laws and practices, more or less

different from their non-tribal neighbours.30

Ghurye has given the following statements regarding the tribes.

1. Tribal people are geographically isolated and live in hills.

2. They use distinct tribal languages.

3. They are animists.

4. They are adivasis.31

According to Roy Burman, there are two ways to look at the tribes, one as

primitive folk, who have remained backward in the scale of civilization, the other

as minority population who has not assimilated in the main body of the

population.32

Bateille has discussed in detail describing all the characteristics of the

tribe which may at times be present, but also accept that, there may not be any

readymade definition of a tribe, variation in size, customs and affiliation with the

larger society of India.33

30 Ibid, pp. 11-12.

31 Ibid, p. 55.

32 Roy Burman B. K., Basic Concepts of Tribal Welfare and Tribal Integration, Indian

Anthropology in Action, 1960, pp.16-24.

33Andre Bateille (ed.), The Definition of Tribe, Tribe, Caste and Religion in India, 1977,

pp. 7-14.

53

Naik‟s definition seems to be insufficient; he writes that a tribe must have

least desire to change.34

Dube in another occasion defines the tribes as, “An ethnic category defined

by real or fictine descent and characterized by a self identity and a wide range of

commonly shared traits of culture. They are not egalitarian. They are at least non-

hierarchic and undifferentiated.35

The tribes could not be brought under a single definition due to differences

in their cultural, economic, political and structural dimensions. The tribal groups

are, at places, isolated and away from the civilization centres, but at some places,

they are trying to be assimilated in the wider Hindu society. Some groups are more

advanced than others, while some are still hesitating to mix with the main stream

of the national life.36

The word „tribe‟ would seem to be one of the most glaring anachronisms of

our time. In a world which is so often described as a global village, applying the

term “tribe” and adjective “tribal” to be particular kind of ethnic and social groups

of people who are distinguished by their way of life and existence, remote from

the beaten paths of civilization, seems an error of visual acuity.37

From the above definitions, it is clear that the term „tribe‟ has many

connotations. A single definition which contains all aspects of tribe is impossible

to a great extent, because each tribe is different from others. The tribes in the

34 Naik T.B., What is a Tribe: Conflicting Definitions, Applied Anthropology in India,

1968, p.25.

35 Dube S.C., Tribal Heritage of India, New Delhi,1977, p.29.

36 Singh R., Tribal Beliefs, and Insurrections, New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd.,

2000, pp. 271-72.

37 Shashi S.S., Tribes of Kerala, New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2005, p.1.

54

North-Eastern part of India are entirely different from the central and Southern

parts of India.

2.4 The Tribes as Indigenous

The term indigenous people have been in use in India for a long time. The

social workers, missionaries and political activists have been using the term

„Adivasi‟, the Indian language term for the indigenous people. The scholars and

administrators extensively used the term like aborigines, autochthonous etc. to

identify the „Adivasis‟. These terms were used mainly as a mark of identification

and differentiation, to identify a group of people different in political features,

language, religion, custom, social organization etc.

In modern period, aspects of marginalization are found among the

indigenous people. They are subjected to subjugation and domination. The term

„Adivasi‟ used as a mark of differentiation between those who were part of

civilization and those who were not. So the use of the term „Adivasi‟ to describe

tribal people seems to have some validity even if the sense of marginalization.

There is a misconception among the majority that the „Adivasis‟ were not familiar

with the modern aspects of civilization and the yardsticks of civilization are not

suitable to them.

„Adivasi‟ is hence defined as a group which shared a common fate, in the

past century and from this, has evolved a collective identity of being „Adivasis‟. It

is not meant to imply that „Adivasis‟ are the original inhabitants.38

Indigenous people are members of small scale cultures who are engaged in

a contemporary struggle for autonomy and survival in a world dominated by

38 Hardiman D., The Coming of the Devi: Adivasi Assertion in Western India. Delhi:

Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 41.

55

national governments and international markets. Within the political arena,

indigenous means the original inhabitants of a region and is posed in opposition to

the colonists, usurpers and intruders who came later in search of new resources to

exploit. Indigenous people are the original inhabitants of a territory and seek to

maintain political control over their resources and their small scale cultural

heritage.39

Indigenous people self identify as members of small scale cultures and

consider themselves to be the original inhabitants of the territories that they

occupy. Perhaps 200 million or more indigenous people are scattered through out

the world, often in remote areas containing valuable natural resources. They are

self conscious of the advantage of their cultural heritage in comparison with life in

the large scale systems surrounding them.40

In the introduction to the “Philosophy of History” Hegel constructs the

major poles of his dialectical narrative through the opposition between the

“sensual Negro” and the “rational free spirit of the European” and then they argue

that the rational mediation between the Negro and the European is slavery.41

There is the old argument that the poor are responsible for their own plight,

since the opportunities for self improvement are in place and they simply do not

take advantage of them because of their own laziness and incompetence. In the

present system, minorities need to be empowered through affirmative action which

will take the form of, for example, quota places in higher education or

39 Bodley John H., Cultural Anthropology: Tribes’ States and the Global System,

Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1994, pp. 362-63.

40 Ibid, p. 365.

41 Willet Cyntia (ed.), Theorizing Multi culturalism; A Guide to the Current Debate,

Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, p. 34.

56

employment legislation, even if there is at the expense of the dominant majority

groups.42

Tribes are seen as one of the ingredients of variety, the degree and manner

in which they are part of the oft-claimed „unity‟ is rather vague and varied. Indeed,

most of India‟s diversities do often, get metamorphosed into a so called „main

stream‟, but tribes are unmixable oil over vast water mass. Tribes, as a subject of

academic inquiry, seem to have been almost a „birth right‟ of Indian anthropology,

though there are wide possibilities as well as the necessity for more inter-

disciplinary perspectives and approaches.43

From the above discussions, given by different social scientists, for defining the

term „tribe‟, we can reach the following conclusions.

1. Common name

2. Common language

3. Common Technology

4. Common territory

5. Common descent from a mythical or historical ancestor or the totemistic

origin.

6. May or may not be endogamous

7. The name of the tribe should not denote any specific occupation.

8. The tribe should observe certain taboos regarding marriage, profession

or occupation.

9. Should have developed a well assessed system of reciprocity and

mutuality of obligations.

42 Watson C.W., Multi Culturalism, New Delhi: Viva Books Pvt. Ltd., 2002, p.50.

43 Arup Maharatna, Demographic Perspectives on India’s Tribes, New Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 2005, preface xii.

57

10. Should have their own political organization, be a political unit.

11. Sense of belonging.

12. Relative isolation of hills and forests.

13. Limited world-view.

14. Lack of historical depth resulting in the early merging of history into

mythology.

15. Overall tradition orientation.

16. Integrated in terms of themes rooted in past.

17. Separate cultured identity.

18. Barbarous conditions.

19. Chieftainship.

20. Smallness.

21. Homogeneity.

22. Self sufficiency.44

2.5 Classification of Tribes

There are different types of classification of tribes. In different states the

level of classification is also different. The states of India with more tribal

concentration has different categories of tribes, each one different from the other

in social, religious, economic and agricultural profile.

Roy Burman classifies tribes into four categories.

1. Those incorporated in Hindu society.

2. Those positively oriented to Hindu society.

3. Those negatively oriented, and

4. Those indifferent to Hindu society.45

44 Kumar B.B., The Tribal Societies of India, New Delhi: Omsons Publications, 1998,

P. 4-5.

58

Vidyarthi L.P. and Rai B. N talked of tribes as:

1. Living in forests,

2. Living in rural areas

3. Semi-accultured and

4. Assimilated.46

Elwin envisaged four categories of tribes:-

1. Purest of pure tribal groups.

2. Groups in contact with the plains but still retaining the tribal mode of

living.

3. Group forming the lower rungs of Hindu faith.

4. Living in modern style.

Tribes have been classified on the basis of the characteristic mode of livelihood.

Bose, divided the tribal people into:

1. Hunters, fishers and gatherers.

2. Shifting cultivators.

3. Settled agriculturists using plough and plough cattle.

4. Nomadic cattle-keepers, artisans, agricultural labourers and

5. Plantation and industrial workers47

.

With the advent of the settled agriculturists, among the tribes, they are

increasingly specialized as peasants and but that even the settled agriculturists

45 Roy Burman B.K., Tribal Demography: A Preliminary Appraisal in K. S. Singh‟s

Tribal Situation in India, Shimla: Indian Institute of Anthropological Survey, 1972,

p.72.

46 Vidyarthi L.P. and Rai B. N., The Tribal Culture in India, Delhi: Concept Publication

Company,1977, p.111.

47 Bose N.K., Tribal Life in India, Delhi: Government Publications, 1971, pp. 4-5.

59

among them are not yet peasants in several respects, particularly in the area of

culture.48

There are many differences between the tribes and the non-tribes. If tribals,

have community living (as a type of traditional society), the people on the opposite

pole are “individualistic”, if tribes conserve their environment, their polar opposite

indulges in Wanton destruction, if tribals respect their elders, the non-tribals reject

them as “unwanted species”, if tribals have subsistence economy, the non-tribals

have market oriented economy.49

The primitive tribes or primitive tribal groups (PTG), a list of 75 Scheduled

Tribes, created in 1973, which are supposed to be more backward than the others.

The following criteria have generally been used for their classification.

1. Pre-agricultural level.

2. Dwelling in isolated and remote habitations.

3. Small number, near constant or declining population.

4. Low levels of literacy and

5. Economic and social backwardness.50

Bhupinder Singh has made between two types of tribal communities: first,

those that demand the “first-aid treatment” (which means little help), and second,

those which require, “hospitalization” (i.e., proper intensive care). To him, the

48 Oommen T.K., Alien Concepts and Asian Reality, Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995, pp. 21-37.

49 Vinayakumar Srivasthava, Concept of Tribe in the Draft National Tribal Policy, December 13,

2008, p. 32.

50 Ibid, p.33.

60

primitive tribes fall in the second category. He also proposes that they may be

called the “Primary Tribes”.51

A Committee constituted by Indian Conference of Social Work

recommended that the Indian Tribes can be divided in to four main groups:

1. Tribes: those who live away from the civilized world in the forests and still

maintain their pattern of life.

2. Semi-tribes: Those who have more or less settled in rural areas and adopted

agriculture and other allied occupations.

3. Accultured: those who have migrated to urban and semi-urban areas and are

engaged in civilized occupations and have adopted some traits of culture of the

civilized population, at the same time continuing contacts with their tribal

culture.

4. Totally assimilated: Those who have been totally assimilated in the civilized

urban way of life.52

2.6 Social Formation: Conceptual Framework

In the pre-historic period the people led a nomadic life almost like wild

animals. He faced threats and calamities alone, sometimes survived or perished. In

the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age, the settled life and societal habit did not develop

in most parts of the world. The beginning of cultivation and settled life adopted,

especially in the Neolithic or New Stone Age, opened up a new era of community

life. The inauguration of solid families and the emergence of clan, tribe etc.,

51 Buddhadeb Choudhari (ed.), Tribal Transformation in India, Volume I, New Delhi:

Inter-India Publications, 1990, p.11.

52 Tripathy S.N. (ed.), Tribals in India; Changing Scenario, New Delhi: Discovery

Publishing House, 1998, p. 358.

61

framed a new canvas of group formations. The term social formation got shape

and popularity in the modern period. The Marxian Philosophy coined and

explained many terms, directly or indirectly related to the mode of production like

Asiatic Mode of Production, Prebendalism, Tributary State, Segmentary State,

Oriental Despotism etc.

The Economists and Social Scientists identified many types and stages of

social formation. It extends from the nomadic to post industrial societies. The

evolution of social change is a highly even process and the development of various

stages of socio-economic progress was witnessed in different ages. The pre-

historic and historic periods passed through divergent occupational stages. The use

of iron and other metals enhanced the vigour of human advancements. The use of

new technologies and techniques supported and supplemented by new tools and

weapons aided the foundation of new kingdoms and dynasties. The Harappan

Civilization, a milestone in the history of India, witnessed a well advanced social,

economic, religious, technological and architectural progress. That period earned

the name and fame as; First Urbanization‟. Later, the rise of „Sixteen

Mahajanapadas‟, generally known as the age of „second urbanization‟, was a high

time of another advanced social formation.

2.7 The Structuralism Theory

Social formation is a term used by Karl Marx rarely in his work. He used

the term „Social Formation‟ and „Society‟ interchangeably in the preface of his

work, „A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy‟. Later this term was

developed as a concept and a method of enquiry by the “Structuralist Marxists”

like Maurice Godelier, Louis Althusser, Barry Hindess and Paul Hirst, in the

second half of the 20th

century. They used it as a concept and method of enquiry to

study the social totality comprised of different structures, in the context of

different modes of production. As opposed to the humanist readings of Marx

62

offered by Lukaacs, Gramsci and others, which stress the role of human agency

and history in social development, the Structuralist Marxists have contented that

what Marx primarily points the way is a scientific structural analysis of social

formations. Althusser views Marxism as a new science of the history of social

formations. These are not centered on human agencies, rather they comprise a

structure of hierarchies relatively autonomous but determined in the last instance

by the economic sub-structure. Some of these theorists have attempted to

distinguish between the usage of social formation and society, however, Althusser

understands „social formation‟ as the total complex of superstructure and

economic infrastructure contains perhaps the most potential for the practical

application of this term. The Structuralist-Anthropologists like Maurice Godelier

preferred the term „Socio-economic formation‟ instead of social formation as they

consider it more useful in the analysis of more concrete historical realities.

Social formation is conceived as consisting of a complex dialectical

relationship between the economic base of a society and the super structure of a

social consciousness and state formation.53

The Structuralists believes that in

primitive tribal societies, the rules of kinship and marriage have an operational

value equal to that of socio-economic phenomena in our society. Hence the

analysis of only kinship relations rather than economic infrastructure provides

further account of the profound structure of the primitive societies.54

The Neo-

Marxist, on the other hand asserts that kinship relations do not dominate the

overall organization of all these primitives and tribals socio economic formation.

53 Sharp R., Knowledge, Ideology and Politics of Schooling, London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1980.

54 Claude Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, New York: Doubleday and Company,

1969.

63

Such domination is associated with the presence of either a single mode of

production or several modes of production.55

According to the structuralist interpretation, social formation represents a

definite combination of structural levels like economy, politics, and culture and

mode of production that produce a determinate and distinctive „society effect‟. The

„society effect‟ of the social formation depends on the overall reproduction and on

the forms of the levels corresponding to that hierarchy. If the hierarchy is

displaced, it is replaced by a new hierarchy with a new „society effect‟ and a new

form of social formation emerges. Althusser has the opinion that social formation

is a „decentered‟ one, and it has no particular centre. It is a pyramid like structure

distinct from one another. In the social formation, the economic aspect has the top

priority. The other features have also specific significance. Herber Marcuse has

characterized social formation as an „integrated totality‟.

The social formation has been in effect, in different type of societies like

slave society, primitive society, feudal society, capitalist society etc. It has been

also prevalent in particular societies like the Japanese society, the French society

etc.

Althusser acknowledged Marx‟s emphasis on the causal weight of the

economic structure, but insisted upon the “relative autonomy” of the

„superstructures‟. An alternative way had to be found to theorize the structural

complexity of whole societies or “structural formations”. The notions of

“structural causality”, and of society as an “over determined structure in

dominance” were introduced to address this problem. Cultural and political

struggles and processes were recognized as having their own specific character

55 Emmanuel Turrey, Marxism and Primitive Societies, New York: Monthly Review

Press, 1964.

64

and role in the maintenance or transformation of societies, but still in ways shaped

by the greater causal weight of economic processes and relations.56

In orthodox readings of Marx, historical societies could be thought of as a

series, in which each successive form arises out of contradictions in its

predecessors, and constitutes an advance over it, towards a pre established end

state, the realization of human potential, the future communist society. So, the

various “pre capitalist” modes of production (primitive, communist, ancient and

feudal modes) are so many “progressive” epochs, leading to capitalism and

eventually, through class struggle or the basis of economic contradictions, to

socialism and communism as the culmination of historical developments. On

Althusser‟s account Marx, and later Lenin, theorized revolutionary transitions as

“exceptional events”, as “conjuncture”, brought about by the contingent coming

together of numerous contradictions inhabiting the complex structures of social

formation.57

There is no linear or undimensional process of the transformation of tribes

into peasants. Now a day, we see diversities, variations, continuity and autonomy

in all social formations. Assimilation will never end, and acculturation is a

continuous process. Pattern of interactions become available. The profile of tribes

or forest tribes or castes and of their relationship that is heterogeneous.58

Theoretically a social formation refers to the interactive co-existence of two

or more economies structured by the dominance of one. Any study of social

formation at the outset necessitates knowledge about the material processes of

56 Anthony Elliot and Larry Ray (ed.), Key Contemporary Social Theorists, USA:

Blackwell Publishing Company, 2003, p.21.

57 Ibid.

58 Singh K.S., Rethinking of Forest, Forest Dwellers and Ecological History, New

Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004, p. 44.

65

human adaptation to the different ecosystems of the region and the social

processes of appropriation. The co-existence and interaction multiple economies,

people and the emergent power structure, characterizes the social formation.59

To Marxists, the concept of social formation represents recognition, in the

historical societies. People do not experience their lives in terms of separate

spheres of existence. Basic economic necessities and social relations are superior,

but the factors like religion, politics or culture and their structure and activities are

less significant. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but

their social being that determines their consciousness. A social formation is

intended to denote the unity among the aspects of social existence, and one

specific to a geographical area. A social formation is indented to refer to the

existence of subsidiary modes of production within the dominance of defining

mode. The precise historical changes which occur will be variously paced and

infected in different social formations even though dominated by the same mode

of production.60

2.8 The Classical Concept of Social Formation

The concept of social formation is a means of approximation of concrete

social formations conceived as existing independently. The classical concept of

social formation has the following crucial features:-

(a) It is a combination of different structural levels like economic, political and

ideological aspects and modes of production that produces determinate and

59 Rajan Gurukkal, Tribes, Forest and Social Formation in Early South India, New

Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004, pp. 65-66.

60 Denis Losgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Land Scope, London: Croom Helm,

2001, pp. 46-47.

66

distinctive „society effect‟ and it has a mode of existence and makes it

relatively autonomous from other existence.

(b) Modes of production represent sub-unities of this existence and they

contribute to the „society effect‟ with varying degrees of determination

depending on their position of domination or subordination.

(c) The „society effect‟ of the social formation depends on the overall

reproduction of its hierarchy of determinacy of modes of production and on

the forms of levels corresponding to that hierarchy. If the hierarchy is

displaced, it is replaced by a new hierarchy with a new „society effect‟ and

a new form of social formation emerges.

(d) Change of form of „effect‟ is not a change in all the elements of the social

formation. Subordinate modes become dominant or vice versa.61

Social formation is the Marxist equivalent of the empiricist, historical and

sociological conception of society as object. Once the conception of social

formation as a determinate unity of being, existence corresponding to its concept,

is abandoned, then the problems of the form of connection between the component

elements of its unitary effect, the problems of empirical contingency on the one

hand and of determination in the last instances on the other, must vanish.62

The conceptualization of social formation involves the following levels of

theorization.

61 Bary Hinders and Paul Hirst, Mode of Production and Social Formation: An Auto

crique of Pre-capitalist Modes of Production, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.,

1997, pp. 46-47.

62 Ibid, pp. 47-48.

67

1) The specific means and processes of production, the forms of distribution

of the products and the relation of those forms to the condition of

reproduction of the production processes.

2) Forms of class relations specific to the structure of the social formation.

3) Forms of state and political appearance.

4) Specific cultural and ideological forms.

5) The conditions for the transformation of certain of these economic, political

and cultural/ideological forms.

6) Forms of relation to other social formations.

There is no consideration of the possibilities of the existence of class

relations through the condition of distribution of means and conditions of

production entailed in the social relation of a social formation. Concepts of

relations of production and forces of production therefore function as means of

formation of the concepts of determinate social formations.63

The concepts of social formation require definite political and theoretical

problems as the means of their development. In Marxist theory, concepts of modes

of production have been developed on the basis of problems arising from very

diverse sources and with diverse means of representation as problems, the

historians practice, the process of theoretical exposition (e.g. the concept of simple

commodity production in Capitalism); political ideologies (Socialism,

Communism) etc.64

Marxist scholars have long been aware of difficulties in the definition of

certain key terms in Marx‟s writings. In particular, the expressions like social

63 Ibid, p. 56.

64 Ibid, p. 58.

68

formation have been subject to divergent theoretical interpretation on

contemporary Marxist analysis. These differing interpretations can be and have

been supported by reference to particular passages by Marx in which term or terms

are employed in corresponding fashion.

2.9 Stages of Social Formation

The journey of human progress has been passed through different

transitional stages, i.e., from nomadic life to settled life, from shifting cultivation

to highly sophisticated industrial society. The transformation process was a very

slow one, among all human races in general, but extremely slow pace among the

tribes. The rate of growth of progress is different in different communities. The

peculiar life features of the tribal communities, their close relation with forest,

food habits, forest related subsistence, rituals, customs, aversion and fear of the

outside world etc, made the progress of tribals difficult. In India, the tribal

response to progressive measures shows different trends. In North-East India, the

life style of the tribe gives a progressive picture. The social formation acquired

momentum and mobility in that area. But in some other parts tribal communities

are still following the traditional primitive life style and their social formation is

still passing through its early stages.

Earnest Gross, with the help of revolutionary perspective, put forward the

following stages of development.

(1) Collectional economy

(2) Cultural nomadic economy

(3) Settled village economy

(4) Town economy

(5) Metropolitan economy

69

Ehrenfels has put forward the four economic types among the early human

societies of South Asia.

(a) Food gatherers

(b) Higher hunters

(c) Plant cultivators

(d) Nomadic herdsmen

Deryll Forde presents five-fold divisions of economics

a) Collection

b) Hunting

c) Fishing

d) Cultivation

e) Stock raising65

Thurnwald has presented a scheme of various types of economic life, some of

which concerns us directly:-

1. Homogeneous Communities of men as hunters and trappers, women as

collectors. The Kadar, the Chenchu, the Kharia, the Korwa are some of the

Indian tribes falling into this category.

2. Homogeneous Communities of hunters, trappers and agriculturists. The

Kamar, the Baiga and Birhor are examples of this type from tribal India.

3. Graded society of hunters, trappers, agriculturists and artisans. Most of the

Indian tribes fall under this category.

65 Singh R., Social Transformation of Indian Tribes, New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt.

Ltd., 1999, pp. 190-191.

70

4. The herdsmen - the Toda and some sections of the great Bhil tribe furnish

classic examples in India.

5. Homogeneous hunters and herdsmen. This category is not represented

among Indian tribes. The Todas do not hunt nor do they catch fish or birds.

6. Ethnically stratified cattle breeders and traders. The Bhotiyas of the Sub-

Himalayan region of the Uttar Pradesh breed yaks and Jibus (cross between

yak and cow) and are itinerant traders, they come down to the plains in

winter and go over the hills right up to Tibet.

7. Socially graded herdsmen with hunting, agricultural and artisan

population.66

The tribes of India may be divided into following broad categories on the

basis of dominant economic activities in the respective economies.

a) Food gatherers and hunters

b) Shifting cultivators

c) Cultivators

d) Pastoralists

e) Artisans

f) Industrial labourers.67

In India, the tribes who are turning their face against the progressive

measures and still living in the hilly regions are going on with their primitive

mode of life and they are referred as barbarians, savage, uncivilized, wild men,

head hunters etc,. Those who migrated to the valley land were being transformed

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid, p.192.

71

into progressive groups and following the life style of the non-tribes living in their

premises.

The primitive tribes in the hills and forests possessed extremely crude

technology with their sparse population and abundance of natural vegetation, were

engaged in hunting of the wild animals and collecting forest products for their

subsistence.68

The primacy of forest culture and tribal way of life continued until the

social formation get dissolved itself into a new one dominated by advanced wet-

rice agriculture. The breaking up of the tribes and forest social formation began to

show clearly the form of a series of institutional and structural changes. The social

formation cannot be persisting on for a long time in a set up of complex

redistribution, generating contradictions. There is a tendency of the gradual

breaking up of the existing social formation.

The existing social formation will be disintegrated by the process involved

the spreading of wet-rice fields, growth of domestic hereditary arts and crafts,

formation of villages on agrarian basis, the growth of artisans, craftsmen and

tillers to supplement the occupation of farming, the development of household

owned and controlled by land owners. The alteration from forest based economy

to agrarian based economy was a result of self-realization, mainly due to the

implementation of strict forest laws, first by the colonial rulers and later by the

post-colonial rulers. The primitive, traditional social relationship of the tribe was

based on kinship, and many times they were reluctant to dissolve the kin based tie

up. But the changes of circumstance have broken up the bonds and a new social

formation beyond the social relationship of kinship developed. The social

formation dominated by forest economies disappeared or discouraged and in its

68 Ibid., P.149.

72

place a series of new trends emerged like, the transition from kin-labour to non-kin

labour, multiple functionaries to hereditary occupation groups, clans to castes,

simple clannish settlements to structured agrarian villages, and chiefdom to

monarchy.69

2.10 Social Formation and Changes on Tribals

The twentieth century, however, has seen far reaching changes in the tribal

life. The dissolution of traditional life helped their assimilation process easier and

faster. The extinction of forest resources and external thrust, compelled them to

give up their in born features and life style to a sophisticated mode of living.

Improved transportation and communication has brought about deeper intrusions

into tribal lands, merchants and a variety of government policies have involved

tribal people more thoroughly in the cash economy, although not on favourable

terms. Improved communication, roads with motorized traffic and more frequent

government intervention led to increased contact of tribals with outsiders.70

The opportunities of tribals to go outside and maintain regular contact with

non-tribes encouraged their social transformation. The transmigration of tribal

culture to a new style, some what closer to the mainstream society, opened a new

era of social formation. The Christian missionaries played an important role. They

have inaugurated infrastructure facilities like schools, dispensaries, hospitals, self-

employment opportunities, vocational training etc in the tribal areas. In the North-

Eastern states of India, many tribes reached the zenith of progress in this way. In

their march to progress, large scale conversions also took place. The nomadic

69 Rajan Gurukkal, op. cit., pp. 75-79.

70 Nishi Dixit K., Tribes and Tribals: Struggle for Survival, Delhi: Vista International

Publishing House, 2006, pp. 5-6.

73

social formation in its long march paved the way for metropolitan standards of

living.

In some tribal societies, the interplay of both traditional and modern forces

activises heralded change. The traditional forces include Hinduisation,

Sanskritisation and tribe-caste continuum, and the modern forces like

proleterization, urbanization, industrialization, planned development, education,

communication, administration, globalization, neo-liberalization, post modernism,

post structuralism etc., stimulate the process of change. Unlike other societies, the

tribes have only a least reflection to other cultures or forces. The tribal society

possesses slightly different social phenomena. So, they always exhibit a low level

of change and development. As a result, they have been outside the periphery for a

long period. Special constitutional provisions provided by the Government of

India, to a great extent, accelerated the process of change. So, many isolated tribal

communities are now exposed to the outside world and are experiencing the

conditions of conflict, continuity and change. The shake up and replacement of

certain traditional traits with newly emerging value orientations have been clearly

pronounced in most of the tribal communities and they are also undergoing several

changes in their way of life.71

The rate of social formation increased with the introduction of Panchayat

Raj system. The development facilities such as drinking water, electricity and

communication have been initiated in many villages. The government and other

development agencies give special consideration to provide educational and

irrigation facilities.

71 Singh R. (ed.), Environmental Policy and Tribal Modernisation, New Delhi: Anmol

Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2000, p.12.

74

2.11 Sanskritisation and Acculturation

The life and culture of the tribes have been undergoing a slow process of

transformation as a result of the contacts with the more advanced people from the

non-tribal areas. This process of cultural contact is known as „acculturation‟. The

process is the result of individuals or groups of people having different cultures

come in to continuous first hand contact.72

The terms like „disintegration‟,

„fusion‟, and „assimilation‟ have been used to describe changes resulting from

contact. The study of acculturation analyses the areas and extent of contact and the

consequences of these conditions upon the concerned cultures.73

Contact between

different cultures will produce positive or negative results. It may be advantageous

to one group or disadvantages to other group. But in some other cases the contact

will be equally beneficial to both parties. Hence contacts are of different types

like, „antagonistic contact‟, „exploitative contact‟ and „philanthropic contact‟.74

The social formation to an advanced stage is possible through the process of

acculturation. The assimilation process has two way directions, i.e., „alienation‟

and „reorientation‟. It is „alienation‟, if the change on the part of members of one

culture is away from the rules governing their traditional structured activities

without internalization of the rules of the other culture, and second the

„reorientation‟ is the change towards the rules governing the structured activities

of the other culture. In „alienation‟, the rules of the culture are abandoned, in

72 Robert Ralph Redfield, Linton, and Melville Herskovits, Memorandum for the Study

of Acculturation, American Anthropologist. Vol. 38, 1936, p. 149.

73 Bruce Dohren P and Robert J. Smith, Toward a Theory of Acculturation, South

Western Journal of Anthropology: 18:3, 1962, p. 31.

74 Ibid, p. 37.

75

„reorientation‟, the rules are altered by processes of internationalization to bring

them in line with those of other cultures.75

Famous Marxists historian, D.D. Kosambi opined that, in India

acculturation has been a continuous process extending over centuries, so the

period of inception is unknown. Basically, it was not a violent action, but a

benevolent action, since both the more advanced and less advanced elements in

the formation of a new society are borrowed from each other.76

„Sanskritisation‟ is another concept developed in India. M. N. Srinivas

coined this term. The lower castes, in order to raise their position in the caste

hierarchy, adopted some customs of the Brahmins and gave up some impure

practices, they followed earlier like meat eating, liquor consumption, animal

sacrifices etc. Through the adoption of this life style, they expect, within a

generation or two they could claim higher class position in the hierarchy of castes.

The lower castes have been adopted vegetarianism and teetotalism in order to

move higher in the caste hierarchy and sanskritising its ritual pantheon.77

Besides

the adoption of vegetarianism, teetotalism, and by sanscritising its ritual pantheon,

it took over the customs, rites and beliefs of the Brahmins and by the adoption of

Brahmanism, a low caste seems to have been frequent, though theoretically

forbidden. The Sanskritisation is a process of Brahminisation and certain Vedic

rites are certified to the Brahmins and two other „twice-born‟ castes.78

75 Ibid, pp. 33-34.

76 Kosambi D.D., An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Mumbai, 1990, p. 50.

77 Srinivas M.N., Social Change in Modern India. Bombay. (1994). p. 57.

78 Srinivas M.N., Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India, Culcutta, 1952,

p.30.

76

2.12. Conclusion

The process of social formation is a reality among the tribes of India, but its

rate of influence will be highly varied among different tribes, in different areas. To

a great extent, it depends upon their attitude towards the changing scenario and

their accessibility to the welfare measures adopted by the government and other

agencies. It is a pleasant fact that, most of the tribal groups, so far, abandoned their

old practices of nomadic life and entered to some other stages of social formation

considered to be advanced. But, minority is still following their traditional isolated

life, in the midst of forest and in the dark caves, reluctant to exhibit themselves to

the sophisticated external world. In the post independent era, the intensification of

socio-economic changes were the results of the tribal welfare measures introduced

by the government, the expansion of such facilities as roads, housing and

education, while increasing their contact with the outside world, helped to widen

the world outlook of the tribes. The welfare measures encouraged the

development of urban tendencies in the tribal areas.

The non-tribal peasant migration to tribal areas was an important reason for

socio-economic changes. Large scale migrations helped to inundate the tribal

regions with non-tribal habits and practices and promoted intensive urbanization in

those areas. In the march of social formation, the tribes lost their ancestral lands,

traditional life style, peaceful atmosphere, food habits, customs, practices etc. But

the progress in education and basic infrastructure facilitated them to defeat their

negligence to the ever progressing and changing world around them. The social

formation is a never ending process and nobody can demarcate its area of

influence and yardsticks of impact. The inclination of tribals towards the

mainstream tendencies, at low or high rate is a great instance for their pro-attitude

towards social formation. If education is a basic concern to analyze the progress of

77

a community, the Kerala state, one of the most literate states in India, has achieved

remarkable progress in tribal literacy.