The Dark Side of Indigeneity?: Indigenous People, Rights and Development in India

Abstract

In the last two decades transnational concerns over indigenous people, indigenous rights and indigenous development has reignited a history of heated debate shrouding indigeneity. This article analyses these debates in the context of the anthropology and historiography of indigeneity in India. From the production of ‘tribes of mind’ to the policies that have encouraged people to identify themselves as ‘Scheduled Tribes’, or ‘adivasis’, the article reviews the context that gave rise to the tensions between claims for protection and assimilation of India's indigenous peoples. Today these debates are shown to persist through the arguments of those that seek to build a support base from an adivasi constituency and are most acute with on the one hand, the work of the Marxists and indigenous activists, and on the other hand, the Hindu right‐wing. Inviting serious scholarly examination of the unintended effects of well meaning indigenous protection and development measures, the article seeks to move the debate beyond both the arguments that consider the concept of indigenous people anthropologically and historically problematic and those that consider indigeneity a useful political tool. In so doing, the article warns against a ‘dark side of indigeneity’ which might reveal how local appropriation and experiences of global discourses can maintain a class system that further marginalises the poorest.

Adivasis, Communists, and the rise of indigenism in Kerala

“…Generally the traditional left was unable to change adequately, leading insurgent movements to embark on a different political path, in some instances quite hostile to socialist politics. In reaction to the excesses of such hostility, there is now a growing body of work that critically analyzes the ''dark side'' of indigenism (Shah 2007), demonstrating that it tends to lead followers straight back to the structures of oppression they sought to escape. In this paper I have tried to add to this body of work an analysis of where such ''hostile excesses'' may come from and the political spirals that produce them (see Steur 2010).…”

“…Those people most active in the movement, namely adivasis from agricultural workers' communities, often had to borrow symbols of dominant ''adivasi-ness'' that they had absolutely no affiliation with, such as the Kurichia bow and arrow represented in the AGMS flag (see figure 1: flag of the AGMS). The discursive construction of adivasi identity frequently even threatened to work against ''adivasis-as-proletarians'' (Baviskar 2005; see also Shah 2007;Whitehead 2007), and it is therefore all the more surprising that it became a central ideological concern of their politics.…”

Adivasi Mobilisation

“…1 I do not claim to present a 'tribal voice' but rather give my own critical interpretation, alert to the danger that deconstructing the more essentialist, and thereby romantically appealing, aspects of tribal life might be taken out of context by opponents of 'indigenous movements' but also realising that the failure to create more realistic and complex understandings of 'indigenous' activism can have serious political consequences in the form of supporting 'indigenous authenticity as racism ... in disguise' (Sissons 2005: 37) or 'maintaining a class system that further marginalises the poorest' (Shah 2007(Shah : 1825.…”

The Tribal-Forest Nexus in Law and Society in India

“…The term "tribal" itself has already been the focus of some deconstructionist activity. See, for instance, Bates 1994;Christie 1998;Corbridge 2000;Mbaku et al 2001;Shah 2007; and modern classics like Barth 1969;Horowitz 1985;Anderson 2006. 5.…”