Tribals are ethnic groups.

Different tribes have their own cultures— dialects, life styles, social
structures, rituals, values, etc.—differing somewhat from those of the dominant non-tribal peasant
social groups. At the same time, most of them are settled agriculturists and social differentiations
have developed among them. Their agrarian problems were and are, to some extent, the same as
those of other non-tribal peasants. Many scholars treat tribal movements as peasant movements
(Gough 1974; Desai 1979; Guha 1983). K. S. Singh joins issue with these scholars and political
activists. He argues, ‘such an approach tends to gloss over the diversities of tribal social formations
of which tribal movements are a part, both being structurally related’ (1985: 119). Because of the
concentration of the tribals in certain areas, their social and political organisation and relative
isolation from the ‘mainstream’, their leadership pattern and modus operandi of political
mobilisation may differ from those of other peasants. Singh argues,

while the peasant movements tend to remain purely agrarian as peasants lived off land, the tribal
movements were both agrarian and forest based, because the tribals’ dependence on forests was as
crucial as their dependence on land. There was also the ethnic factor. The tribal revolts were
directed against zamindars, moneylenders and petty government officials not because they exploited
them but also because they were aliens (1986: 166).

K.S. Singh (1985) divides the tribal movements into three phases. The first phase was between 1795
and 1860. It coincided with the rise, expansion and establishment of the British Empire. The second
phase covers the period between 1860 and 1920. It coincided with the intensive phase of
colonialism, ‘during which merchant capital penetrated into tribal economy affecting their
relationship with the land and forest’. The third phase covers the period from 1920 till the
achievement of independence in 1947. During this phase the tribals not only began to launch the so-
called ‘separatist’ movements, but at the same time participated in nationalist and agrarian
movements.

During the nineteenth century, the British came in conflict with various tribes in different parts of
the country when they annexed tribal kingdoms and introduced British administration in the tribal
areas. Most of the tribes live in forests on which they are dependent in more ways than one. It is one
of the main sources of their livelihood. In order to get the forest products the British government
introduced certain regulations and permitted timber merchants and contractors to cut the forests.
These regulations not only curtailed the rights of tribals over forest products, but also made them
victims of harassment by the forest bureaucracy. Tribals resented this. Verrier Elwin (1945)
observes that the tribals firmly ‘believe that the forest belongs to them and that they have a right to
do what they will with it. They have been there, they say, for centuries; it is their life and they
consider themselves justified in resisting any attempt to deprive them of it’ (ibid.: 257). The tribals
in general and the chieftains in particular felt the loss of power and resources in the new
administration. They revolted against the British (Mathur 1988). Various movements in different
parts of the country were launched by ‘rebellious prophets’ who promised their followers that they
would drive out the outsiders and bring back the golden age of the past (Orans 1965; Fuchs 1967;
Singh 1966; Troisi 1976). Their aim was to reestablish their Raj and maintain the tribal organisation
and culture. The Birsa Munda movement in Chhota Nagpur aimed at the ‘liquidation of the racial
enemies, the Dikus, European missionaries and officials and native Christians. The Mundas would
recover their “lost kingdom”. There will be enough to eat, no famine, the people will live together
in love’ (Singh 1966: 193). These were not fanciful dreams about the past. Religion provided them
with courage and hope for a better future and vigour to fight against the oppression by alien rulers
(Arnold 1982). Most of these movements took place during the early British period. Though, some
tribes had an apprehension that after independence they would lose their identity. The Naga, for
example, expressed the fear in 1947 that their culture—their ancient laws and customs and village
organisations which they had retained—would be destroyed by the Hindu rulers of India. They
argued that ‘a constitution drawn by the people who have no knowledge of Nagaland and Naga
people will be quite unsuitable and unacceptable to the Naga people. Thrown upon forty crores of
Indians, the one million Naga with their unique system of life, will be wiped out of
existence’ (Yonuo 1974: 167).

Three volumes on Tribal Movements in India, edited by K.S. Singh (1982, 1983a, 1998) are an
important contribution to the relatively scant literature on the subject. The first volume (1982) deals
with the northeast frontier tribes, the second volume (1983a) focuses on central and south India and
the third volume confines itself to a survey of literature on tribal movements in different parts of the
country. The first two volumes deal with tribal movements which primarily took place in the post-
independence period. The major part of the second volume is confined to the movements of central
India and Andhra. There is only one paper on the tribal movements of south India—Tamil Nadu and
Kerala—and the Nicobar Islands. The third volume also has one chapter focusing on tribal
movements in Lakshadweep and southern India. This is evident in the survey of literature by P.R.G.
Mathur (1998). The reason is that there were an insignificant number of movements or none at all
among the tribals of the southern states. K.S. Singh states, ‘The tribes down south are too primitive,
too small in numbers, and too isolated in their habitat to organise movements, in spite of their
exploitation and the resultant discontent’ (1983a: XVI). L.K. Mahapatra also offers a similar
observation: ‘We do not find any significant social movement, religious, status mobility or political,
among the numerically small, migratory tribes, like the Birhor, Korwa, Pahira, the hill Kharia, or
the shifting cultivators like the Hill Maria, the Hill Saora or the more primitive Kond’ (1972: 408).
Surajit Sinha makes similar observations regarding the small tribes in Bihar (1972). This may be
true, but it is based on limited data as very few studies have been undertaken regarding the tribals of
south India. One has to study these tribes before arriving at any conclusion regarding the
capabilities of small tribes for revolt.

Different scholars have evolved different typologies of tribal movements. Mahapatra (1972) applies
the typologies widely used for social movements to tribal movements: (1) reactionary; (2)
conservative; (3) revisionary or revolutionary. The reactionary movement tries to launch a
movement to bring back ‘the good old days’, whereas the conservative movement tries to maintain
the status quo. The revisionary or revolutionary movements are those which are organised for
‘improvement’ or ‘purification’ of the cultural or social order by eliminating ‘evil’ or ‘low’ customs,
beliefs or institutions. Surajit Sinha (1968) classifies the movements into: (1) ethnic rebellion; (2)
reform movements; (3) political autonomy movements within the Indian Union; (4) secessionist
movements; and (5) agrarian unrest. S.M. Dubey (1982) divides the tribal movements in northeast
India into four categories: (1) religious and social reform movements; (2) movements for separate
statehood; (3) insurgent movements; (4) cultural rights movements. In fact, there is a very thin line
dividing the (2), (3) and (4) types. However, these typologies do not include the recent movements
around the issues of forest rights and environment, and displacement of the tribals due to
‘development’ programmes of the state and the market.

Economic issues involved in the tribal movements were often somewhat similar to those affecting
non-tribal peasant movements. The main difference between the two in the last century was that the
tribals had their own communal agrarian structure which was different from that of the non-tribal
peasants. The non-tribals started penetrating the forest and hill areas to exploit economic resources,
thereby undermining the traditional economy and society of the tribals (Arnold 1982). The newly
imposed British land system was radically different from that prevailing among many tribals.

Land alienation, forced labour, minimum wages, land grabbing, etc. continued to be the main issues
of tribal movements on the eve of independence and thereafter. The tribals of Andhra Pradesh
participated in the Telengana movement and fought against the landlords and the forced labour
which they imposed (Pavier 1981; Dhanagare 1983). The Warli of Maharashtra struck work in 1944
during the harvest season, demanding higher wages. They fought against a system of bonded labour
and exploitative landlords. They launched a strike in 1946 demanding higher wages for forest work
(Parulekar 1975; Parulekar 1979). Some tribals of western India launched movements against
moneylenders and landlords and liquor sellers in the 1920s (Hardiman 1987). They launched no-
revenue and land grab movements in Gujarat in the 1950s (Shah 1975; Desai 1977), declaring that
they were the natives and original owners of the land. Adivasis of Pardi taluka of south Gujarat
launched a movement for the implementation of land reform acts and distribution of land to the
tillers (Desai and Desai 1997, Desai 2002)

Sinha argues that the intensity of tribal solidarity/separatist movement will be positively correlated
to an optimum convergence of the following factors:

1. ecological and socio-cultural isolation of the bulk of the tribal population vis-à-vis the core
peasantry;

2. a certain level of numerical strength and economy to provide the striking powers of solidarity
movement;

3. location near the international and inter-civilization frontier;

4. a certain level of literacy and education to provide elite leadership;

5. historical incidence and awareness of conflict with the peasantry and the political superstructure
of the peasantry;

6. the opportunity for political rank path combined with limited scope for economic emolument
(Sinha 1968: 420).