On the Future of Indigenous Traditions - Munin

With this position if we look at the case of Adivasis in Jharkhand it is the power
theory of politics (see section 3.1) that is dominating. The state as within the structure
of State is playing a role of the ‘legal organisation’ in making and implementing state
policies: With the following fact we can very well make out why the Adivasis need to
have their political association (the rights theory of politics) which is inclusive of
representation through their customary system being central for their self-governance.
Taking the facts into this frame for analysis, firstly, it is only in 2000 that Jharkhand
was made to be a new political state after the country’s independence in 1947. The
demography of Jharkhand had drastically changed within the span of five decades
already. One would say beyond any ‘well-wishers’ comprehension, that this occurred
because this region is not only a rich mineral resource area, but also an area where
mega industrial estates were founded soon after the independence of the country,
opening job opportunities for people from neighbouring states. The region was rich in
natural resource, but the people were ‘backward’, ‘illiterate’ and ‘poor’. Therefore,
‘technical’, ‘literate’ people had to be brought in to run the industrial estates;
infrastructures had to be built, urbanization and expansion of towns to cities, Bokaro,
Dhanbad, Tatanagar etc. for example was in progress 114 . Jharkhand was a part of
Bihar for all these years, where not only the key positions but all the jobs from top to
bottom were occupied by Biharies, Bangalis and others, except for the reserved seats
in jobs. Patna, was the capital of Bihar being the headquarters of all the state’s affairs
red-tapirs, nepotism, and bribery was in every level of state affairs. Since Patna was
socially and culturally different, this situation in many ways created a north south
divide. The South had all the resources and ‘opportunities’, but a weak political
representation, with all office headquarters in the north. South Bihar was thus “given”
to be exploited to the guise that ‘we are all Indians’ dominated the notion of national
identity, and the Adivasi thus had to be affiliated to one national identity with no
voice of their own. Therefore, we can take Brass’s theoretical frame of ‘the struggle
within the ethnic group’ to interpret the Bihar / Jharkhand context. While it can not be
taken word to word, however, the constructivist interpretation of the ethnic group(s)
identity fits the first set of struggle quiet well.
114 Government is often in a hurry to industrialise the area and the country without giving a chance and
opportunity to get the required education for running the industries. This policy has led the Adivasis to
die an un-natural death.
74