Adivasis have had unique and evolving relations with states. In our common sense, we often think of them as “noble savages” and often relate them with something alien to our world.
Such common sense has origin in colonial anthropologists administrators, who consider them noble savage and antithesis to modern civilisation. Furthermore, they argued that Adivasis existence was increasingly threatened by modern civilisation and, in more specific terms, by the modern states.
Subaltern studies scholars also argued in a similar line not to be precise “noble savage” instead of anti-statist. They were basing their theory on the 19th-century rebellions by different tribes, and subaltern scholars concluded that tribes are an antonym of state. In short, they are state repelling agents.
We can further locate such views that consider Adivais untouched by modern state formation and exist outside the state. In one of her writings, Alpa Shah argues that Adivasis (Munda) are “keeping the state away” and availing affirmative benefits at the same time by participating in the election.
Moreover, they consider politics immoral and polluting and have their own “sacral politics”, which is pure. Such theories also have origin in the same belief system but more in the benign sense, arguing that Adivasis are outside the state.
However, the recently diverse range of scholars has now started to argue that the Adivasi communities across India are deeply entangled within the logic of modern state power. Furthermore, they provide examples of Bhils and their relations with Mughals, Maratha, British colonial and Indian postcolonial states.
If modern states deem forests and hill marginal spaces, we need not assume that the state is somehow weak, absent or at odds with those inhabiting these spaces.
So, Chandra argues we must, thus, locate Adivasi communities within processes of modern state formation and appreciate how the notions of “tribe” and “Adivasi” have taken their historical forms in close conversation with colonial and postcolonial states in India. So, to put it more clearly, there are no “tribes” or “Adivasis” outside the domain of the modern Indian states.
Nevertheless, from the above discussion, it does not mean Adivasi-state relations in contemporary India are amicable. So to see from evolving perspective on Adivasi-state relations, we are at the stage where Adivasis are not considered as “noble savage” and even anti-statist.
Adivasis negotiate every day with the state in many forms, from forest guards to politicians. The negotiation tactics of Adivasis often vary from reading laws back to states to the smaller encroachment of those laws.
So the thought of Adivasis as “noble savages” is misleading and does not do justice to them. Similarly, the idea that Adivasis exists outside the state is equally flawed and misleading. But Adivasis being anti-statist is a bit complex and we can understand it by taking a more pragmatic approach towards their politics.
Negotiation with the state is better to approach rather than consider them anti-statist.
Chhotelal Kumar, MA in Political Science, JNU.