The word ‘tribe’ has become a contested term in recent times. While the dictionary meaning simply states a group of people of the same race, and with the same customs, language, religion etc; anthropologists used the term tribal society to refer to societies organized largely on the basis of kinship. In the historical or developmental sense, a tribe is viewed as a social group existing before the development or outside of the state. Definitions apart, the term have become a matter of intense debate. Due to its colonial roots the usage of the term to mean under-developed communities has been questioned. In the light of such a debate, scholars have started looking for alternative terms like `ethnic group` or ‘ethnic communities’ or simply ‘ethnos’. In India, tribes are polities that have been granted legal recognition and limited autonomy by the state. Article 342 simply says that the President of India can “specify the tribes or tribal communities… to be Scheduled Tribes” and that the Parliament also has the power to include and exclude groups to and from the list. Towards enlistment of communities under the ‘Scheduled Tribes’, the government of India had laid down several criteria. The list of criteria includes “tribal language, animism, primitivity, hunting and gathering, `carnivorous in food habits,` `naked or semi-naked,` and fond of drinking and dance`.” What could be more demeaning than these criteria in the backdrop of several ethnic assertions or aspirations for self-determination? A Mizo scholar Lalsangkima Pachau had said that the tribal tag was given for the convenience of the administrative system that is thoroughly influenced by the caste stratification mindset, and politically and culturally controlled by the caste Hindu society. He further went on to say that, the attitude of the national mainstream that primitivizes and thereby inferiorizes the “tribals” is in serious conflict with the proud self-understanding of the tribal in the Northeast. Pachau’s contention is interesting and we agree with his views in certain areas. Yet, the question is, whether how many of the ‘tribal’ scholars or for that matter the ‘tribal’ elite thinks like him. Some scholars unquestioningly accept the name tag. We are confused. We sometimes think, the answer might lie perhaps in the economic benefits involved. Being a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of India entails numerous benefits ranging from education scholarships and reserved entry in technical courses to gainful employment or promotion through the reservation system even including a tax-free life. The reservation wonders had created such uproar within the communities included in the general category that sections of the Meiteis had openly vouched for the OBC tag or the Scheduled Caste category simply for the benefit. One serious issue in the northeast has been the understanding of the self or own identity. While one hand accepts the largesse extended by either the ST/SC tag or the OBC identity, the other hand seeks a future based in self-determination and unique history. If we are really serious about having an urge to determine our own future or wanting to emerge from the tribal cocoon that we have been caught or rather entrapped ourselves, we should be questioning ourselves on the notions of self-identity and classification by others. We honestly think that assertions or aspirations should go hand in hand with our own self identification or self identity. We shout from the rooftops regarding racial discrimination in the Indian mainland while having reservations on the question of pride of one’s identity or heritage and self-esteem. We think we have escaped from the cage of excluded areas or the walls put up by the patronizing Indians when we venture out of the region, which is not true. We are still caught in a time wrap and the caged mentality refuses to go away for either fault of others or ourselves.
Home Editorial