On the Future of Indigenous Traditions - Munin

Finally, it is those groups who have come from outside in the recent past dominate
and control the bureaucratic machinery of the state. Even though the capital has
moved to Ranchi, the same characteristic and culture of exploitation persists.
Common talks are such as the “dikus –meaning outsiders here referred to Biharis,
Bangalis and other non-Adivasis, would not give up the south of Bihar state (now
Jharkhand), which has been the dikus ‘milking cow’,” so the exploitation continues in
the system as long as outsiders control it. Therefore, “dikus would not want the
original settlers or the native people (the Adivasis) to rise up to higher social level”.
We find that all ‘the tricks of the book’ are being used to break the already weakened
social system of the Adivasis who have lived here for ages.
At the same time when we try to understand the situation of Adivasis in a given
context, there are questions asked by the general category of people saying why
should they (Adivasis) be seen as a distinctive group and have special privileges?
Some non-Adivasis would also argue, that by defining them as different (or called, to
be the indigenous), they are being encouraged as an ethno-political entity in the region
leading to the notion of fragmentation in the national integration.
The former rule of Bihar, including the culturally different south and now Jharkhand
has more or less the same administrative and bureaucratic character even today. The
Adivasi movement in Jharkhand is from a given theoretical frame of ethnic identity,
national identity according to Prakash, is termed as the “sub-national political
movements”. The Jharkhand movement started with the Unnati Samaj in 1914 for
“tribal autonomy” and “reformation in terms of abandonment traditional customs and
practices and adoption of education and new values.” 116 The Adivasi Mahasabha in
1938 “in the form of a socio-cultural movement began with a certain degree of
militancy for rejuvenating and revitalizing the tribal society” 117 This was headed by
Congress worker Jaipal Singh, which later formed itself to become the Jharkhand
Party in 1950 started with two objectives. First was the demand for statehood for the
116 K.L. Sharma, “The Question of Identity and Sub-Nationality: A Case of Jharkhand Movement in
Bihar”in Jharkhand Movement Indigenous peoples’ Struggle for Autonomy in India edited by R. D
Munda and Basu Mallick ( Copenhegen: IWGIA, 2003), 234.
117 Ibid.
76