How Tribal Communities are Coping with a Changing World

Here is my last final paper due this week.  It's on the tribes of India.  I know it's long, so no need to read it unless you are really curious but the second to last section entitled "resistance efforts" is kinda interesting as I talk about some of the groups that are working to help the tribes.  If some parts of this paper are abrupt then it is because I had a word requirement that I couldn't go too far over.  =p  I'm just happy to have gotten this done with.   Have a great week, everyone!  I will be going to Kerala in southern India from April 1 - 4 with my friend Marie so that should be fun.   Love, Kaia (^_^) How Tribal Communities are Coping with a Changing World Introduction: India has a population of over one billion people, approximately 16 percent of the world's population, who all live in a country about one third the size of the USA.   There are 15 official languages, and numerous different regional and local dialects and other non-official languages (Lonely Planet 18).  The fact that all of this diversity manages to be housed under the roof of one "nation" is a feat in itself.  But not one that comes easily nor with complete success.   Officially there are a little over 400 tribes in India that span across the continent and make up 8.2% of the population (Lonely Planet 68).  Like the country itself, the diversity amongst tribes is quite extensive.  Some are nomadic and others are forest dwelling, while others are into agriculture.  But all are registered underneath the Constitution of India as the Scheduled Tribes of India. Ever since the British colonization of India, the tribal communities have suffered from development and modernization efforts.  Like many other native peoples in the world, the priorities of national development were put in front of the well-being and rights of the tribes.  Therefore, this paper will discuss the problems caused by development and modernization and will shed light on some of the ways in which tribes have been dealing and addressing these problems. The unofficial policy taken towards tribal people by the government both before and after Independence have been one of integration.  In the Constitution, tribes were given the right to representation, to use and learn in their own language, to practice their own religions, to "development according to their own genius," and the opportunity to have reservations in government institutions (Xaxa 386).  After independence, Nehru's government wanted to not only help the tribes but to do so in a manner that would not damage their already existing social structure and culture.  Nehru's administration wanted to help tribes develop themselves in ways that would be most beneficial to them.  Thus, though not mentioned by word, the goal was to assist the tribes in integrating into the new India so as to improve their quality of life.  The actions taken to ensure this were either protective, developmental, or "mobilizational" (Xaxa 386).  Protective measures referred to the constitutional and legal changes made to protect tribes and their wellbeing.  Developmental measures were meant to "promote the welfare of the tribal people," and mobilizational efforts were aimed at providing tribal people with some means of representing and finding a place within society (Reservations, representatives, etc.) (Xaxa 386).  In all of these actions, Nehru's main concern was that the identity and culture of the tribes be maintained, respected and even encouraged to live on in the modern India.  While the integration part of this plan was enforced, later administrations did not abide by Nehru's ideals of respecting the tribal culture, art and social organization.  In fact, as efforts to develop the country picked up speed, tribal issues were pushed to the margins.  By developing all of India, the government hopes to prove India's legitimacy and modernity to the world.  Therefore many of Nehru's goals or plans have been executed as to the convenience of the development planners.  Instead of working with the tribal people to help them help themselves develop, development projects have been thrust upon the tribes with disastrous results.    Economic Affects: As Xaxa says, "it was the formation of the state [before colonization,] which led to changes in the economic structure of tribal communities" (395).  Once states were established, the rulers of the state would encourage peasants to migrate into tribal areas to take advantage of the prime land cultivation opportunities.  The tribes, though some may have cultivated the land for their own use, did not have the agricultural techniques, which would enable them to create surplus.  Thus the peasants were sent to provide more profit for the rulers.  This migration of peasants to the tribal land was called peasantization.  Colonization extended this by creating a state-as-landlord vs. peasant economic system called "zamindar" (Xaxa 395).  After independence, the tribal areas were further incorporated into the nation's economic system.  The first step was to take advantage of the natural resources located on tribal land.  Before colonization and industrialization, tribes were communal-based or nature-based, meaning that the tribes lived off the land instead of cultivating it for profit.  Land was something that could be owned by individuals or the tribe, but products were made to satisfy needs, not to make profits.  When the government came a long with their development plans, they seized land for natural resource extraction and brought with them capitalism.  Tribes became dependent on the market and on good weather to ensure survival of their crops and themselves.  And while these development projects and natural resource extraction plants should have benefited the tribes, it soon became apparent that they did the opposite.  Development of these new companies did create jobs in the tribal areas; however, few tribal people were actually hired.  Instead, the companies hired non-tribal people who flocked to the tribal areas on the establishment of these new "employers".  This outside competition, who possessed a better education and therefore more skills, left most tribal people out of jobs.  Those who were employed were given lower-paying jobs that required few to no skills.  Only a few tribal people managed to get better paying jobs (Xaxa 395).  As jobs within the tribal areas diminished, tribal people were forced to look for work in other areas.  Most found work in the plantations, industry and mining business (Xaxa 397), or were forced into bondage to pay off loans (Ramalingam).   Social Problems             Development brought with it physical as well as social problems.  Before the non-tribal people came, caste and class-based divisions were not present in tribal societies.  Once non-tribal people appeared, a new social structure was quickly formed in which those with connections to the non-tribal people automatically had more power than others in the tribe.  For the developers, tribal individuals were key to developing and creating business within tribal community (through both ethical and non-ethical means) and so were bribed and rewarded for their assistance.  Eventually, moneylenders and traders appeared in the communities, which further created a class-like division.  Xaxa calls this new social system one made up of "thee-tier agrarian categories" which consisted of  "feudatory chiefs/zamindars" on the top, then "well-to-do peasants, that included a section of tribal [people,] especially village headmen," and lastly "a very large section of small and poor cultivators and landless laborers who were mainly tribals" (Xaxa 396).  The capitalism and competition thus created a new social structure in communities, one in which the tribes are the poorest of the poor.  Because of this their new social and economic position, the tribal people are without most social services.  Education, healthcare, and other basic needs are most often not met, and the lack of education only continues the vicious cycle of the oppression and exploitation of tribes.   Political Problems             As development brought more and more non-tribal people into the tribal areas and communities, the tribes lost more and more control over their land and people.  The percentage of the population that currently resides in tribal areas and which is of tribal heritage has decreased rapidly over the past few years.  In Tripura, tribal people made up 50.09% of the population in 1941 but by 1951 that number had shrunk to 32.24% (Xaxa 389).  The government has not accurately accounted for even the total tribal population for all of India.  In the Schedule of Tribes, only 426 tribes are recognized as "official tribes."  An anthropological survey counted 635 tribes, meaning that 209 tribes are not recognized and have not been included in the percentage of the population who is tribal (Devi).  The lack of representation for tribal people has continued politically in both national and local politics.  As their population shrunk, the tribal people were quickly reduced to a minority in land that was once theirs.  In the Indian democracy this has meant that politically, the concerns and rights of the tribes are not usually addressed.  Reservations for the Scheduled Tribes have alleviated the problem, but only slightly as only too often political representatives, though of the tribe, loose their tribal loyalty when faced with the overwhelming temptations of a capitalist market. Where political action has been taken to address tribal problems, the plans have been created without tribal input and by people who know nothing about the tribes themselves.  The plans created therefore do nothing to help the tribal people.  For example, in Kalahandi of Orissa, an extremely fertile place, the Kalahandi tribes are dying of starvation.  Why?  Because their land was taken from them so they cannot grow their staple foods.  The government's response to their plight was to give them rice, the non-tribal staple.  However, the tribes rely on other grains and therefore the rice doesn't completely solve their problem.  Another example is here in Maharashtra.  The Korkus are forest dwellers who rely on what they harvest from the forest for survival.  As the forests have been depleted their food supply has diminished and they are no longer being able to find the food they need to survive.  People from outside the tribe have sent food to the Korku people but as it is not what they are accustomed to, the food remains uneaten and the problem continues.  In response to the Korku's plight, a government official put the blame on the Korku people themselves, saying that "this tribe is congenitally unfit to survive" (Devi).  This is the general attitude of the government officials towards tribes.  To them, the tribes create difficulties and problems that require too much effort and attention for the government officials to create tailored solutions.    Cultural Problems             Development and modernization has not had a positive impact on the cultural aspects of tribes, either.  As Suresh says, "destruction of modes of livelihood are also moments of profound cultural loss."  Tribal people have struggled to maintain their cultural identity when so much of their way of life has been changed by development projects.  Loss of land has not only taken away their food source, but also was the source of their art, culture and traditions so has had severe effects on those aspects of tribal life as well.    Displacement has also affected tribal culture.  As tribal people were forced to move in search of work and to make a living, the population was dispersed and tribal traditions and culture have therefore faded in the process.  When a family is barely managing to make enough to feed themselves and no longer lives with others from their tribe, it is extremely difficult to maintain cultural traditions and the traditions get lost.  Capitalism, too has taken its toll. "The mighty tribal culture, their fantastic dances, music, painting and wood cuttings [have been] lifted by middlemen for a handful of coins and sold at high prices at home and abroad. The artisans receive next to nothing" and the culture and people continue to degrade and suffer (Devi).  Where tribes have managed to find a market for their art and handicrafts, the middlemen have taken advantage of them to then make a profit selling the tribal wares for higher prices.               Resistance Efforts There are both tribal-led and non-tribal-led efforts to help the tribes in political resistance, and to survive both physically and culturally in the modern world.  The different groups that are formed are diverse and strive to address all aspects of tribal life: from political representation and mobilization of the tribal people, to education and employment, here are a few examples of some of the current resistance efforts.  Sarpam Thozhilalar Sangam is an NGO that is completely run by the Irula people themselves, but was funded by the Bharathi Trust (an organization that funds projects which benefit the Irula people).  The NGO has been very affective in mobilizing the Irula people politically, especially in the "unorganized sector," and rescue people held in bondage.  These individuals usually are working to pay off loans their families had been forced to take out to survive but usually end up spending their whole life striving to achieve this goal (Ramalingam).  Through the NGO, these previously bonded people are then given the opportunity to help others in bondage and stick up for their own rights. Another organization, Vivekananda Girijana Kalyana Kendra (VGKK) was founded in 1981 by Dr. H. Sudarshan, a doctor and activist for the tribal people.  VGKK works with tribes in Karnataka and "believes in empowering tribal societies and achieving sustainable development through health, education, livelihood security and biodiversity conservation keeping their core culture intact" (Vivekananda Girijana Kalyana Kendra).  They strive to address nearly all the challenges of modern tribal life and even include women empowerment programs. Individuals have also been key to assisting tribal people.  Dr. Robin D. Tribhuvan is an anthropologist and development consultant who specializes in studying and working with tribes.  Through his anthropological studies he helps conserve the tribal culture while educating non-tribal people (and foreigners, like my classmates and I) on tribal ways and traditions.  He also assists developers in ensuring that the development process will do as little harm to the tribes as possible and finds ways in which tribal people can be included in development plans (Tribhuvan).  Mr. Rom Whitaker is India's most well-known snake catcher and founder of the Madras Snake Park.  The idea of the Park started when he met the Irula people and saw the opportunity to partner with the their tribe in the harvesting of snake venom, which is used for anti-venom medicines (Lenin and Whitaker).  This has not only employed the Irula people but the land that the Park protects enables them to maintain some of their traditions and culture as well.   Conclusion Like the Native Americans in the US, the tribal people of India have withstood horrible treatment by the government and development in general.  They have been taken advantage of, exploited, displaced, misrepresented and misunderstood.  The way in which tribes have managed to cope with this changing world varies dramatically.  While some, like the Irulas, have managed to maintain their culture and traditions through organizations, individuals or NGOs, other tribes are in the situation of the Korkus who are on the verge of extinction.               What does the future bring for the tribes of India?  That greatly depends on the actions of the government and the abilities of the resistance efforts.  But regardless of the political details, "tribal survival in the modern world [will] be possible and meaningful only if we learn to recognise it as [a] presence with its own intrinsic worth, and not merely as a grim illustration of the logic of progress" (Suresh).  The non-tribal society will have to acknowledge and appreciate the differences of tribal society and work with them to create a truly modern India.  As Dr. H. Sudarshan points out, there is much that non-tribal people can learn from the tribal people, especially in regards to medicines and environmentally friendly ways to farm and live (Shankar).  Integration can be a two-way street in which both tribal and non-tribal people benefit.  Currently the only thing lacking is the receptiveness of the mainstream Indian society, particularly, the government.      Works Cited   Devi, Mahasweta. "Year of Birth: 1871." India Together March 2002. Lenin, Janaki and Rom Whitaker. Biography. 28 March 2010 <http://www.draco- india.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=8>. Lonely Planet. India. Oakland: Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, 2009. Ramalingam, Krithika. "Irula panchayat heads push for upliftment." 11 December 2006. India Together. 28 March 2010 <http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/dec/soc- irulas.htm>. Sharkar, Malini. "Tribals, forest interdependence, and integration." 19 October 2008. India Together. 28 March 2010 <http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/oct/env- tribals.htm>. Suresh, Sharma. "A Society in Transition." 200 йил 16-July. The Hindu Folio. <http://www.hinduonnet.com/folio/fo0007/00070140.htm>. Tribhuvan, Dr. Robin D. Presentation to Global Alliance students on the Tribes in India January 2009. Vivekandanda Girijana Kalyana Kendra. Main Page. 15 March 2010. 28 March 2010 <http://www.vgkk.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page>. Xaxa, Virginius. "Tribes in India." Sociology and Social Anthropology. Ed. Veena Das. New Delhi: OUP, 2003.

My Host Family: an Example of Modern Patriarchy

I just finished my final paper for Social Justice class.  Yay!  Now I just have my Contemporary India paper on tribes for Monday.  My film paper won't be due until the end of April which is absolutely wonderful because this way I'll have time to make it good.  =D Hope you enjoy my paper.  Hopefully my professor will feel as good about it as I do.  =p My Host Family: an Example of Modern Patriarchy             I live with a small host family of two people who are very different from each other.  My host mother, Amma, as I call her is 64, already with dentures, and spends most of her time at home cooking for my host brother and I, and watching TV.  She wears saris every day, speaks very broken English, goes to temple daily, and prays to the gods in her kitchen shrine at least twice a day.  My host brother on the other hand is almost 40, never got married, lived and worked in the US for a year, always has his cell phone on hand, and spends most of his free time on Facebook.  He wears shorts around the house, speaks fluent English, is not religious, and does social activism as a hobby.  They are two very different people: one very traditional and one very modern.  What surprises me about my host family is that though the differences between my host mom and host brother are somewhat to be expected (my host brother is younger so he would be more tech-savvy, etc and the older generations are known to be more traditional), my host mother seems to be more liberal while my host brother is very patriarchal.  Despite the modern gadgets and Western appearance, my host brother is the perfect example of the patriarchy of modern Indian society.               I know that using my host family as proof of modern patriarchy in India is not completely fair.  I recognize that not all Indian men are like my host brother, nor that all women are like my host mother.  However, from other experiences here in India and conversations with my fellow students and other Indians, alike, I have heard only accounts that affirm my own conclusions from my host family.             My host father died in 1995 and though I cannot understand Marathi (and therefore miss out on the dialogues between my host mom and brother), I can tell that my host brother is the man of the house.  He does whatever he wants and does not seem to listen to my host mother.  He is still unmarried, likes to party a lot, and usually sleeps in until 10 am or so (sometimes later).              I have also felt his patriarchal presence from my own interactions with him.  He is very good at using persuasion and earlier in my semester here would constantly try to pressure me into going somewhere or doing something with him.   One time he convinced me to go to the movies with him but absolutely refused to help me choose a movie.  Though it was his idea he told me to choose a movie and a time.  When I finally managed to find a movie and locate the time he promptly told me that he would not be able to be ready to see a movie by 6:30 pm (2 hours to get ready apparently was not enough).  I grudgingly found the 8:30 pm showing.  Of course, because of him we didn't leave the house until 8:20 pm so we were 15 minutes late to the movie.  Thus, even when he insists that I make decisions, it is only a façade as he is ultimately going to do whatever he wants on his timeline.              Again, I understand that some of these qualities in my host brother may be personal traits, but they are also traits that I have found in other men as well, including my grandfather in the USA.  But in regards to my grandfather, we attributed his sexism to his age and the difference between generations.  What surprises me most is that my host brother is patriarchal regardless of his age and his modernity.  This seems to be a reoccurring theme in India: modernity does not mean gender equality.  Despite the laws that state women are equal, that abolish gender-based discrimination in the workplace, and even India's efforts to modernize and westernize (actions that I associate with gender-equal societies), Indian society is still very patriarchal.             When the British first came to India, the lack of women's rights was one of their first observations.  They used the "degraded condition of Indian women… as an indicator of India's inferior status in the hierarchy of civilizations" (Bandopadhyey 381).  To them, the lack of gender justice was due to India's backwardness and lack of modernity.  Modernity therefore was associated with gender justice and equal rights for women.              Because of the British's judgments, the new and independent India did their best to prove themselves to Britain and the world, and "the status of women became the main focus of the reforming agenda for the modernizing Indian intellectuals of the nineteenth century" (Bandohpadhyey 381).  As part of this agenda Articles 14 and 15 were added to the Constitution, which made the discrimination of women unconstitutional (Iyer).  Since then, several other laws have been passed on multiple levels of government (such as Reservations for women), but patriarchy still prevails.                In 2009, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer wrote an article in The Hindu about a case he presided over which acknowledges this sad fact.  In 1979 there was a Supreme Court case in which Mrs. C.B. Muthamma argued that she had not been promoted as ambassador by the Indian Foreign Service because of her gender.  She was an excellent Foreign Service employee and had received top scores in her Foreign Service exam, and yet she was still denied ambassadorship.  The first judge to view the case had sided with the Indian Foreign Service, saying that "the chances of leakage of confidential information of strategic significance was a dangerous risk, and so Muthamma's case to be made an ambassador was rightly rejected" (Iyer).  The Foreign Service had no legitimate reason to doubt Muthamma's confidentiality.  In fact, as Justice Iyer (who was the Supreme Court judge of the case ) pointed out, if gender gave reason for doubting one's confidentiality then why were the wives of ambassadors free of this discrimination?  Because of Justice Iyer's ruling, Muthamma won the case and became India's first woman ambassador.  In his article, Justice Iyer points out that laws that discriminate against gender still exist even after the establishment of its unconstitutionality because government workers neglect to challenge them.  Justice Iyer calls this "a sad reflection of the distance between Constitution in the book and Law in Action."  I completely agree with Justice Iyer but will take his interpretation one step further by pointing out the reasons behind this apparent gap between laws and actions.  It is quite simple: the laws are not enacted because those who have the power to do so do not believe in them.  No one challenges their actions so they continue neglecting the law.  As Ratna Kapur says, "law is a necessary but insufficient part of a more general strategy of bringing about social change" and therefore, "public opinion has to be moulded to accept these rights" (Kapur 122).  Law puts women on legally equal footing as men but it takes acceptance of this change on a societal level to ensure equal treatment and justice for women.  India has changed quite quickly over the past few decades so why hasn't Indian society changed?  This returns us to the subject of my host brother and his modernity.  He is walking, breathing proof that though India for all visual purposes has "changed", the social change from patriarchy has not happened.  India is high-tech, familiar with the international arena, and has made bigger jumps politically in electing women than most countries.  India has already had a female Prime Minister and many women governors, representatives and congress members.  But as Gary Younges points out, "there is no absolute causal link between gender representation and gender equality.  Six of the countries that rank in the top 20 for women's representation are also in the top 20 for per capita rapes."  Representation, modernity, and laws are therefore "more likely to be the product of progressive social change than a precursor to it" and should not be taken as reasons to assume gender equality extends into society (Younges).  This assumption is one that is all too often made, all over the world.  Even in the US, where we pride ourselves on protecting the individual rights of all, we still have not elected a woman for president, and gender discrimination, sexism and gender stereotypes abound.  As I mentioned earlier, they even exist in my family.  And in high school I switched out of a gym class because my male gym teacher was sexist and yelled at me when I respectfully expressed my non-sexist views.  Women (and men) everywhere continually struggle with society's inability to change.  So what is the answer?  How do we create change?  I believe the first step is to recognize that gender justice is still a problem, and to stop assuming that modernity will create immediate equality.  We need to start in our own families, schools, and communities to start the change ourselves.  Only then will we be able to achieve gender justice.  And only then will we maybe be able to associate modernity with gender justice.    Works Cited Bandopadhyay, Sekhar. "Many Voices of Nation." Plassey to Partition - A History of Modern India 2004. Iyer, V. R. Krishna. "A woman ambassador's cause: C.B. Muthamma helped uphold gender justice in teh Indian Foreign Service." The Hindu 28 October 2009. Kapur, Ratna. "Challenging the Liberal Subject: Law and Gender Justice in South Asia." Mukhopadhyay, Maitrayee and Navsharan Singh. Gender Justice, Citizenship and Development. New Delhi: Zubaan, and imprint of Kali for Women, 2007. Younge, Gary. "Barack Obama and women MPs do not alone mean equality and justice." Guardian Newspaper 2010.

The term "backwards"

I know it has been a while since my last post, and I do promise to write about all that I have been busy with in that time but at the moment I feel the need to express my great frustration over the term "backwards."  This is my last week of classes and therefore I will write more after my finals end at the end of this month.  =) "Backwards" is a term which you will encounter countless times in India.  They use it legally, in conversation, and in literature.  It is used to describe non-developed or non-modernized peoples, classes, or castes.  There are Reservations (like Affirmative Action in the US) that set up quotas for Dalits (people who used to be known as "untouchables"), tribal people and women.  What bothers me most is that they continue to call these classes, castes, and people "backward classes/castes/people."  It just seems extremely judgmental and demeaning, in my opinion.  How would you like to be called backwards?  Forwards, backwards, sideways... it all depends on perspective and opinion anyway!   I think the term was first introduced by the British when they colonized India but it really surprises me how it is still used today.  I asked our program coordinator (mind you, she is not from the backwards class, either), if people from these "backward" groups felt offense at being called "backwards."  She said that because of the Reservations, people only see the benefits that come with that word.   I just still can't understand why others don't see the abomination of using that word.  UGH!  It bothers me SO MUCH!  Especially when I read it in academic journals or in government or law-related circumstances.  It just seems SO offensive to me.  GRRRRRR.   "Backwards" is a word that places those you are referring to on an unequal and inferior level than yourself.  You are not only saying they are inferior but then you are also saying that their way of life is wrong.  So how can one continue using it if they want equality for all?  How come those who are fighting for equality don't insist that they not be referred to as such anymore.  Maybe, in the long scheme of things, there are other battles to be fought that are more important.  But in my opinion, this word represents the societal mentality that needs to be changed.   So anywho, that's my rant on "backward-ism."  I am doing my final paper for Contemporary India on the Tribes of India, the affects of modernization/globalization/development on them and their responses to these projects.  Thus my ranting was prompted by yet another mention of the "backward" classes in one of my readings.  It makes me want to do things backwards just to prove they aren't necessarily bad or wrong.  =p I'd better get back to my paper but as I said, I will write again and post pictures after finals are over.   Have a great week, everyone! Love, Kaia (^_^)

It's a colorful world...

Happy Holi everyone!   Yesterday was the festival of colors for northern India but today was the day for Majarashtra.  I was invited to "play colors" by my new Indian friend who I met on Saturday morning when I went to the super early traditional Indian singing performance of my classmate.  I had a TON of fun hanging out with her and her wonderful friends.  I look forward to doing more with them!     Have to go finish my paper for class tomorrow but wanted to get these pictures posted from today and yesterday before I leave for Mumbai tomorrow evening with my class.  We will be in Mumbai until Friday night touring the non-tourist part of the city.  I think the photos and the few titles I put on them speak for themselves.  =p   Challenge: can you recognize Kaia in every picture?  (^_^) Have a great week everyone!   Love, Kaia

Holi!!!