CONSOLIDATION OF INDIA AS A NATION: INTEGRATION OF THE TRIBALS

The task of integrating the tribal people into the mainstream was extremely complex, given the varied conditions under which they live in different parts of the country, and their different languages and distinct cultures. The 1971 census recorded over 400 tribal communities numbering nearly 38 million people and constituting nearly 6.9 per cent of the Indian population.

 1. Transformation Brought By Colonialism In Tribal’s

• Colonialism brought radical transformation of the tribes as their relative isolation was eroded by the penetration of market forces and they were integrated with the British and princely administrations.
• A large number of money-lenders, traders, revenue farmers and other middlemen and petty officials invaded the tribal areas and disrupted the tribe’s traditional way of life.
• They were increasingly engulfed in debt and lost their lands to outsiders, often being reduced to the position of agricultural labourers, sharecroppers and rack-rented tenants.
•  Simultaneously, ‘missionaries were destroying their art, their dances, their weaving and their whole culture.
• Colonialism also transformed the tribal relationship with the forest. They depended on the forest for food, fuel cattle feed and raw materials for their handicrafts. In many parts of India, the hunger for land by the immigrant peasants from the plains led to the destruction of forests, depriving the tribals of their traditional means of livelihood. To conserve forests and to facilitate their commercial exploitation, the colonial authorities brought large tracts of forest lands under forest laws which forbade shifting cultivation and put severe restrictions on the tribals’ use of the forest and their access to forest products.
•  A series of tribal uprisings occurred in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries—for example, the Santhal uprising and the Munda rebellion led by Birsa Munda, and to the participation of the tribal people in the national and peasant movements in Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal, Andhra, Maharashtra and Gujarat.

2. Roots Of India’s Tribal Policy

• The preservation of the tribal people’s rich social and cultural heritage lay at the heart of the government’s policy of tribal integration.
• There were two major approaches approach was to leave the tribal people alone, uncontaminated by modern influences operating outside their world and to let them stay more or less as they were. The second approach was that of assimilating them completely and as quickly as possible into the Indian society all around them. The disappearance of the tribal way of life was not to be regretted; it was to be welcomed for that would represent their upliftment. Jawaharlal Nehru rejected both of these approaches.
• Instead of these two approaches, Nehru favoured the policy of integrating the tribal people into Indian society, making them an integral part of the Indian nation, even while maintaining their distinct identity and culture. There were two basic parameters of the Nehruvian approach: ‘the tribal areas have to progress’ and ‘they have to progress in their way.

Nehru stood for economic and social development of the tribal people in multifarious ways, especially in the fields of communication, modern medical facilities, agriculture and education. In this regard, he laid down certain broad guidelines for government policy.

1. The tribals should develop along the lines of their genius; there should be no imposition or compulsion from outside.
2. Tribal rights in land and forests should be respected and no outsider should be able to take possession of tribal lands. The incursion of the market economy into tribal areas had to be strictly controlled and regulated.
3. It was necessary to encourage the tribal languages which ‘must be given all possible support and the conditions in which they can flourish must be safeguarded
4. For administration, reliance should be placed on the tribal people themselves, and administrators should be recruited from amongst them and trained.
5. There should be no over-administration of tribal areas. The effort should be to administer and develop them through the tribal's own social and cultural institutions.

Provisions

To give shape to the government policy following provisions were made-

• Article 46 - the state should promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the tribal people and should protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation, through special legislation.
• Governor’s special responsibility governors of the states in which tribal areas were situated were given special responsibility to protect tribal interests, including the power to modify central and state laws in their application to tribal areas, and to frame regulations for the protection of tribals’ right to land and also their protection from moneylenders.
• Reservation of seats -it provided for reservation of seats in the legislatures and positions in the administrative services for the Scheduled Tribes as in the case of the Scheduled Castes.
• Tribal Advisory Councils-The Constitution also provided for the setting up of Tribal Advisory Councils in all states containing tribal areas to advise on matters concerning the welfare of tribals
• A Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes-A Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was appointed by the President to investigate whether the safeguards provided for them were being observed.
• Legislative and executive action- Legislative, as well as executive action, was taken by the state governments to prevent the loss of tribal lands to non-tribal people and to prevent exploitation of the tribals by moneylenders.
• Special programs central and the state governments created special facilities and organized special programmes for the welfare and development of the tribal areas and the tribal people including the promotion of cottage and village industries and generation of employment among them.

Causes of slow progress

1. Weak The problem often lies in the weak execution of even well-intentioned measures.
2. Divergence in policies-there is a divergence between the central and the state government policies, the latter being less in tune with tribal interests
3. Inefficiency-state governments have been relatively ineffective in administering the positive policies and laws laid down by the central government or by the state governments themselves.
4. Misappropriation of Funds allocated for tribal welfare are not spent or are spent without corresponding results, or are even misappropriated.
5. Tribal Advisory Council- the Tribal Advisory Councils have not functioned effectively.
6. Ill-trained Personnel-administrative personnel are ill-trained or even prejudiced against tribals.
7. A major handicap from which tribals suffer is denial of justice, often because of their unfamiliarity with the laws and the legal system. Laws preventing the transfer of land to outsiders have continued to be evaded, leading to the alienation of land and eviction of tribal
8. Rapid extension of mines and industries has worsened their conditions in many areas. While deforestation proceeds apace through the cooperation of corrupt officials and politicians with forest contractors, the tribals’ traditional right of access to the forest and its produce is continuously curtailed.
9. Education- The progress of education among the tribal people has been disappointingly slow. In many areas, primary education through the tribal languages has taken place, but in others, the state governments have tended to neglect tribal languages and education through their medium
10. Class Differences- Tribal society almost everywhere has also been gradually developing class differences and a class structure with those belonging to the upper crust often joining forces with the upper crust of the outsiders.

3. Tribals in India

• The tribes of north-eastern India, situation was different in several respects.  They constituted the overwhelming majority of the population in most of the areas they inhabited.
• Their sociopolitical structure was not disturbed and a deliberate policy of excluding the outsiders from the plains was followed. In particular, no non-tribal plainsmen were allowed to acquire land in the tribal areas because of this the tribals suffered little loss of land.
• At the same time, the British government permitted and even encouraged the Christian missionaries to move in and establish schools, hospitals and churches and to proselytise, thus introducing change and modern ideas among some of the tribal youth.

The Sixth Schedule

• It offered a fair degree of self-government to the tribal people by providing for autonomous districts and the creation of district and regional councils which would exercise some of the legislative and judicial functions within the overall jurisdiction of the Assam legislature and the parliament.
• The objective of the Sixth Schedule was to enable tribals to live according to their own ways.
• Nehru’s and Verrier Elwin’s policies were implemented best of all in the North-East Frontier Agency or NEFA, which was created in 1948 out of the border areas of Assam.
• NEFA was established as a Union Territory outside the jurisdiction of Assam and placed under a special administration.
• From the beginning, the administration was manned by a special cadre of officers who were asked to implement specially designed developmental policies without disturbing the social and cultural pattern of the life of the people.

Demands for a separate state

• NEFA was named Arunachal Pradesh and granted the status of a separate state in 1987.
• The problems arose because the hill tribes of Assam had no cultural affinity with the Assamese and Bengali residents of the plains.
• The tribals were afraid of losing their identities and being assimilated Especially distasteful to them was the attitude of superiority and even contempt often adopted by non-tribals working among them as teachers, doctors, government officials, traders, etc.
• There was also a feeling among them that the Assamese government failed to understand them and tended to neglect their interests.
• Soon, resentment against the Assam government began to mount and a demand for a separate hill state arose among some sections of the tribal people in the mid-fifties.
• The demand gained greater strength when the Assamese leaders moved in 1960 towards making Assamese the sole official language of the state.
• In 1960, various political parties of the hill areas merged into the All Party Hill Leaders Conference (APHLC) and again demanded a separate state within the Indian union.
•  The passage of the Assam Official Language Act, making Assamese the official language of the state, and thus the refusal of the demand for the use of the tribal languages in administration, led to an immediate and strong reaction in the tribal districts.
• There were hartals and demonstrations, and a major agitation developed. In the 1962 elections, the overwhelming majority of the Assembly seats from the tribal areas were won by the advocates of a separate state, who decided to boycott the State Assembly
• Prolonged discussions and negotiations followed. In 1969, through a constitutional amendment, Meghalaya was carved out of Assam as a state within a state which had complete autonomy except for law and order which remained a function of the Assam government.
• Meghalaya also shared Assam’s High Court, Public Service Commission and Governor.
• Finally, as a part of the reorganization of the Northeast, Meghalaya became a separate state in 1972, incorporating the Garo, Khasi and Jaintia tribes.
• Simultaneously, the Union Territories of Manipur and Tripura were granted statehood.
• The transition to statehood in the case of Meghalaya. Trouble arose in the case of Nagaland and Mizoram where secessionist and Insurrectionary movements developed.

Nagaland

• The Nagas were the inhabitants of the Naga hills along the North-East frontier on the Assam-Burma border.
• The British had isolated the Nagas from the rest of the country and left them more or less undisturbed though Christian missionary activity was permitted, and which had led to the growth of a small educated stratum.
• Immediately after independence, the Government of India followed a policy of integrating the Naga areas with the State of Assam and India as a whole.
• A section of the Naga leadership, however, opposed such integration and rose in rebellion under the leadership of A.Z. Phizo, demanding separation from India and complete independence. They were encouraged in this move by some of the British officials and missionaries.
•  In 1955, these separatist Nagas declared the formation of an independent government and the launching of a violent insurrection.
• The Government of India responded with a two-track policy-On the one hand, the Government of India made it clear that it would firmly oppose the secessionist demand for the independence of Naga areas and would not tolerate recourse to violence. Towards a violent secessionist movement, it would firmly follow a policy of suppression and non-negotiations.
• On the other hand, Nehru realized that while strong and quick military action would make it clear that the rebels were in a no-win situation, total physical suppression was neither possible nor desirable, for the objective had to be the conciliation and winning over of the Naga people.
• Nehru was wedded to a ‘friendly approach’. Even while encouraging the Nagas to Integrate with the rest of the country ‘in mind and spirit’; he favoured their right to maintain their autonomy in cultural and other matters.
• He was, therefore, willing to go a long way to win over the Nagas by granting them a large degree of autonomy. 
• By the middle of 1957, the more moderate Naga leaders headed by Dr Imkongliba Ao came to the fore. They negotiated for the creation of the State of Nagaland within the Indian Union.
• The Government of India accepted their demand through a series of intermediate steps; and the State of Nagaland came into existence in 1963.
• But though the insurgency has been brought under control, sporadic guerilla activity by Naga rebels trained in China, Pakistan and Burma and periodic terrorist attacks continue to this day.

Mizoram

• Secessionist demands backed by some British officials had grown there in 1947 but had failed to get much support from the youthful Mizo leadership, which concentrated instead on the issues of democratization of Mizo society, economic development and adequate representation of Mizos in the Assam legislature. 
• However, unhappiness with the Assam government’s relief measures during the famine of 1959 and the passage of the Act in 1961, making Assamese the official language of the state, led to the formation of the Mizo National Front (MNF), with Laldenga as president.
• While participating in electoral politics, the MNF created a military wing. This received arms ammunition and military training from East Pakistan and China.
• In March 1966, the MNF declared independence from India, proclaimed a military uprising and attacked military and civilian targets. The Government of India responded with immediate massive counter-insurgency measures by the army. 
• In 1973, after the less extremist Mizo leaders had scaled down their demand to that of a separate state of Mizoram within the Indian union, the Mizo district of Assam was separated from Assam and as Mizoram given the status of a Union Territory.
• Mizo insurgency gained some renewed strength in the late seventies but was again effectively dealt with by Indian armed forces.
• A settlement was finally arrived at in 1986. Laldenga and the MNF agreed to abandon underground violent activities, surrender before the Indian authorities along with their arms, and re-enter the constitutional political stream.
• The Government of India agreed to the grant of full statehood to Mizoram, guaranteeing full autonomy regarding culture, tradition, land laws, etc. As a part of the accord, a government with Laldenga as chief minister was formed in the new State of Mizoram in February 1987.

Jharkhand

• Jharkhand, the tribal area of Bihar consisting of the Chota Nagpur and the Santhal Parganas has for decades spawned movements for state autonomy.
• In this area are concentrated several major tribes of India, namely Santhal, Ho, Oraon and Munda. Unlike traditional tribes, nearly all of these practices settled on plough agriculture based on family farms.
• Economic differentiation has set in; there are a significant number of agricultural labourers and a growing number of mining and industrial workers. The land-holding pattern among tribals is as unequal and skewed as among nontribal.
• A large class of moneylenders has also developed among them. The tribal society in Jharkhand has increasingly become a class-divided society. Most tribals practice two formal religions Hinduism and Christianity.
• The Jharkhand tribes, however, share some features with other Indian tribes. They have lost most of their land, generally to outsiders, and suffer from indebtedness, loss of employment and low agricultural productivity.

Demand For Separate Tribal State

• A movement for the formation of a separate tribal state of Jharkhand, incorporating Chota Nagpur and the Santhal Parganas of South Bihar and the contiguous tribal areas of Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal, started during the late thirties and forties.
• Realizing that the interests of the tribal people could be best promoted and their domination by non-tribals ended if they had a state of their own within the Union of India, the Jharkhand party was founded in 1950 under the leadership of the Oxford-educated Jaipal Singh.
• The party achieved remarkable success in the 1952 elections when it won 32 seats in Chota Nagpur and emerged as the main opposition party in the Bihar Assembly. It won 25 seats in 1957.
• The States Reorganization Commission of 1955, however, rejected the demand for a separate Jharkhand state on the ground that the region did not have a common language.
• The central government also held that tribals being a minority in Jharkhand could not claim a state of their own.
• Several tribal parties and movements developed in Jharkhand after 1967, the most prominent being the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), which was formed in late 1972.
• The JMM revived the demand for the Jharkhand state, but it made two innovations. It recognized the hard reality that nearly two-thirds of the population of Jharkhand was non-tribal and that; therefore, a movement which appealed only to the tribal people could not acquire the requisite political strength.
• The JMM, therefore began to assert that all the older residents of the Jharkhand region, whether tribal or non-tribal, were exploited, discriminated against and dominated by North Bihar and the recent migrants.
• It, therefore, put forward the demand for a separate state as a regional one on behalf of the peasants and workers of the region.
• Concentrating on economic issues, it also acquired the support of the nontribal poor; several non-tribal leaders and political activists joined it, though the bulk of its following was still that of tribals.
• The tribal leaders felt that despite the minority character of tribals in the projected Jharkhand state, they would have a far greater representation and weight in the new state than they had in Bihar as a whole.
• The JMM turned into a radical programme and ideology. Joined by other groups, especially leftist groups such as the Marxist Coordination Centre, it organized several militant agitations on issues such as the recovery of alienated land, moneylenders’ exploitation, employment of tribals in mines and industries and improved working conditions and higher wages in the latter, police excesses, high-handedness of forest officials and increasing liquor consumption.
• The movement for the Jharkhand state underwent constant ups and downs and splits over the years with new groups coming up every so often.