Suchergebnisse

Corbridge reviews 'Swami Sahajanand and the Peasants of Jharkhand: A View from 1941' edited by Walter Hauser.

In this paper I want to explore the implications of the rise and fall of Jharkhandi ethnoregionalism from the point of view of tribal policy and tribal politics in Independent India. More especially I want to examine an ideology of tribal economy and society which informs most existing accounts of Jharkhandi politics and which makes the case for a specifically 'tribal' policy. The main propositions of this ideology are recounted in Section One of this paper. They are (1) that the concept of a tribe is given and uproblematical; (2) that the tribals of South Bihar are the original inhaitants of the Jharkhand, where they still predominate (see Figure I); and (3) that tribal politics and tribal policies are effective because individual tribes are themselves undifferentiated, united and geographically concentrated. (A corollary of this third proposition is that any decline in Jharkhandi ethnoregionalism since the mid-1960s must be due to factional disputes within the tribal leadership and/or to inter-tribal clashes, perhaps along denominational lines). These three propositions are examined in Sections Two, Three and Four of the paper, where they are measured against the recent historical experience of India's Jharkhand. The implications of any shortcomings in the ideology of tribal economy and society are taken up in the concluding section of the paper where comments are offered, too, on an alternative 'model' of tribal policy and politics in the Jharkhand.

SINCE INDEPENDENCE, THE POLITICS OF CHOTA NAGPUR AND SANTAL PARGANAS IN EASTERN INDIA HAS BEEN MUCH INFLUENCED BY THE JHARKHAND PARTY AND BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS COMMITTED TO THE FORMATION OF A TRIBAL JHARKHAND STATE IN SOUTH BIHAR. SEVERAL THEORIES HAVE BEEN ADVANCED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RISE (AND FALL) OF JHARKHANDI ETHNOREGIONALISM. THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES AN 'OFFICIAL' OR 'PERVERSITY' ACCOUNT OF JHARKHANDI POLITICS. THE PERVERSITY MODEL MAKES THREE MAIN CLAIMS: (1) THAT BRITISH TRIBAL POLITICS WERE INFORMED BY A PHILOSOPHY ISOLATIONISM; (2) THAT SINCE INDEPENDENCE THIS PHILOSOPHY HAS BEEN SUPPLANTED BY A SPIRIT OF INTEGRATIONISM BASED UPON POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION FOR TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT; AND (3) THAT THE RISE OF JHARKHANDI ETHNOREGIONALISM SINCE 1950 (THEREFORE) REPRESENTS A PERVERSE RESPONSE TO THE ENLIGHTENED TRIBAL POLICIES OF THE POST-COLONIAL STATE. THESE CLAIMS ARE EXAMINED IN TURN. THE PAPER REJECTS THE ISOLATIONIST /INTEGRATIONIST DICHOTOMY. IT SUGGESTS THAT THE RISE OF JHARKHANDI ETHNOREGIONALISM REPRESENTS A RATIONAL RESPONSE TO THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS THAT POSTINDEPENDENCE ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE OPENED UP TO, AND IMPOSED UPON, THE TRIBAL COMMUNITIES OF EASTERN INDIA. THE OPPORTUNITIES ARISE FROM THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION AND FROM ITS WILLINGNESS TO RECOGNIZE THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AS A DISTINCTIVE POLITICAL CONSTITUENCY. THE CONSTRAINTS DERIVE FROM THE STATE'S FAILURE TO MEET THE ASPIRATIONS OF THIS 'NEW' POLITICAL COMMUNITY. FOR TPY: 1987