Liberalism and Its Other: The Politics of Primitivism in Colonial and Postcolonial Indian Law

Abstract

Liberalism is widely regarded as a modern intellectual tradition that defends the rights and freedoms of autonomous individuals. Yet, in both colonial and postcolonial contexts, liberal theorists and lawmakers have struggled to defend the rights and freedoms of political subjects whom they regard as “primitive,” “backward,” or “indigenous.” Liberalism thus recurrently encounters its primitive other, a face‐off that gives rise to a peculiar set of dilemmas and contradictions for political theory and law. In what ways can postcolonial law rid itself of its colonial baggage? How can the ideal of universal liberal citizenship overcome paternalistic notions of protection? How might “primitive” subjects become full and equal citizens in postcolonial societies? To explore these dilemmas and contradictions, I study the intellectual trajectory of “primitivism” in India from the construction of so‐called tribal areas in the 1870s to legal debates and official reports on tribal rights in contemporary India. Through a close reading of these legal provisions for tribal peoples and places, I explore the continuing tension between the constitutional ideal of liberal citizenship and the disturbing reality of tribal subjecthood produced by colonial and postcolonial Indian states.

Ensuring protection against caste discrimination in Britain: Should the Equality Act 2010 be extended?

“…These ‘normalized’ patterns of interaction apply to treatment of tribal peoples as well as caste groups, but as pointed out in Dhanda et al (2014a: 3) ‘sociologically speaking, the distinction between caste and tribe is to some extent arbitrary and reified by law’. Tribal peoples in particular were ‘primitivized’ and infantilized under colonialism (Chandra, 2013: 161). However, the ‘caste/tribe divide’ is not how ‘colonial subjects saw themselves’; it was the Scheduled Districts Act 1874 that ‘separated castes and tribes by law’ (ibid.).…”

Developing Terra Nullius: Colonialism, Nationalism, and Indigeneity in the Andaman Islands

“…89 It is significant that a disproportionately large number of illegal "encroachments" into the Jarawa Tribal Reserve are authored by Ranchiwallas 86 "Annexure I: Andaman and Nicobar Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation (ANPATR) 1956 Including all Amendments until 2004," in Sekhsaria and Pandya, Jarawa Dossier, 87. 87 Ibid., [91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106]116. 89 This particular form of "contact" with the Jarawas is of relatively recent provenance and became an issue only after 1997-1998, when the Jarawas started regularly venturing out of the forests to accept gifts.…”

“…In this sense, it continued the colonial legal framework of offering protection in lieu of self-representation to those groups designated as "tribes" in India. 92 This protection took the form of a series of legal interventions, beginning with the Scheduled Districts Act of 1874 and extending right up to the Government of India Act of 1935, which created and maintained a different idiom of rule for the tribal areas, variously classified as "non-regulation tracts," "scheduled districts," "backward areas," and "excluded areas." 93 At the core of these regulations was the assertion that tribal inhabitants of these areas were too backward or primitive to be capable of political self-representation, and were vulnerable to exploitation by surrounding caste Hindus.…”

Colonial Histories of Heritage: Legislative Migrations and the Politics of Preservation

“…These areas would come to be designated under the Government of India Act of 1919 as 'backward tracts', reflecting the perception that they were occupied by the most primitive tiers of the colonized society. 93 The Chotanagpur Tenancy Act aimed to amend tenancy laws and codify them according to custom and usage. However, when the Act came into force there were only 156 villages registered as having full Mundari khuntkhatti rights.…”