Perversity and ethnoregionalism in tribal India: the politics of the Jharkhand

Abstract

Since Independence, the politics of Chota Nagpur and Santal Parganas in eastern India has been much influenced by the Jharkhand party and by other organizations committed to the formation of a tribal Jharkhand state in South Bihar. Several theories have been advanced to account for the rise (and fall) of Jharkhandi ethnoregionalism. This article examines an ‘official’ or ‘perversity’ account of Jharkhandi politics. The perversity model makes three main claims: (1) that British tribal politics were informed by a philosophy of tardy isolationism; (2) that since Independence this philosophy has been supplanted by a spirit of integrationism based upon positive discrimination for tribal development; and (3) that the rise of Jharkhandi ethnoregionalism since 1950 (therefore) represents a perverse response to the enlightened tribal policies of the post-colonial state. These claims are examined in turn. The paper rejects the isolationist/integra-tionist dichotomy. It suggests that the rise of Jharkhandi ethnoregionalism represents a rational response to the opportunities and constraints that post-Independence administrations have opened up to, and imposed upon, the tribal communities of eastern India. The opportunities arise from the government's positive discrimination legislation and from its willingness to recognize the Scheduled Tribes as a distinctive political constituency. The constraints derive from the state's failure to meet the aspirations of this ‘new’ political community. For the tribal communities of eastern India the state is both a resource and a legitimate target of attack.