Adivasi History & Struggle for Justice in India

Unveiling the Truth About Adivasis

Every year, August 9th is globally recognized as International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. This day acknowledges the existence and struggles of indigenous communities across the globe. However, the story of indigenous people, or Adivasis, in India is complex and often obscured. Despite being considered the original inhabitants of the land, their history is fraught with denial, misrepresentation, and persistent oppression. This article delves into the untold story of India’s Adivasi population, examining their identity, the historical injustices they have faced, and their ongoing challenges to rights and existence. It draws insights from historical records, judicial pronouncements, and academic analysis to illuminate the Adivasi history and struggle for justice in India.

Table of Contents:

Global Recognition vs. India’s Stance on Indigenous Identity

In 1993, the United Nations declared August 9th as International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, granting international recognition to these communities. The concept of indigenous peoples acknowledges that in every country, certain communities are considered the original inhabitants – the first claimants to the land and its resources before others migrated or settled there. This principle has gained worldwide acceptance.

The UN Framework and India’s Denial

While the global community recognizes indigenous populations, India has historically maintained a stance of denial regarding the existence of ‘indigenous people’ within its borders. This position became particularly apparent at the 1993 working group meeting on indigenous peoples in Geneva, organized by the United Nations.

The Indian delegation present at this meeting outright denied the existence of indigenous people in India. They stated that only Scheduled Tribes (often referred to as ‘Janajati’) resided in the country. Many see this denial as an attempt to dilute the specific rights and international recognition associated with the term ‘indigenous’.

Self-Determination and Government Apprehensions

The United Nations advocates for indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. Governments have often attempted to dismiss this right, labelling self-determination as separatism or a conspiracy driven by foreign powers. This apprehension might contribute to governments’ reluctance, including India’s, to fully acknowledge the ‘indigenous’ identity, preferring terms like ‘Janajati’ (tribe) instead. Understanding the precise meaning of ‘Adivasi’ in relation to ‘Indigenous’ or ‘Desaj’ and other similar terms becomes crucial in this context.

Rewriting History: Colonial and Brahminic Narratives

Outsiders, often with vested interests serving dominant narratives or colonial agendas, have largely written the history of Adivasis in India. This has resulted in a distorted and incomplete picture of their past.

Colonial Perspectives on Adivasi History

According to insights cited from specialists like Ranjit Sahay, authors employed by colonial rulers primarily documented the history and ethnography of Adivasis. These authors tended to emphasize the destructive aspects of tribal activities. Simultaneously, they neglected Adivasis’ contributions to trade, exploration, and political and cultural institutions. This approach created a uniform, yet incomplete and distorted, portrayal of India’s Adivasi society.

Ranjit Sahay is quoted as saying, “The history and ethnography of the tribals were mostly written by writers appointed in the service of the colonial rulers. They emphasized the destructive aspects of the activities of the tribes, neglected their contributions to trade, exploration, and political and cultural institutions, and painted a uniform picture that was incomplete and distorted.”

This resulted in a common perception of Adivasi life that remains vague and one-sided even today. People in urban areas often know little about Adivasis or hold prejudiced views, associating them solely with forests or negative stereotypes.

Fitting Adivasi into External Frameworks

Sahay further notes that scholars often try to fit Adivasis into their preconceived frameworks. They interpret Adivasi lives and culture according to their own convenience. This has led to confusion, even among Adivasi scholars and YouTubers today, regarding their own true history, as colonial-era accounts and subsequently built narratives became the primary references as noted in the image above.

The Influence of Brahminic History

A significant issue highlighted is the prevalence of a ‘Brahminical history’ narrative that has become widely accepted as truth. This narrative, often solidified during the British era, tends to sideline or misrepresent the history of the original inhabitants. A correct perspective avoiding value judgments is essential.

To uncover the true history of India’s tribal populations, reliance on archaeological findings and the notes left by foreign travelers who visited ancient India is suggested, rather than solely on distorted historical accounts.

Identity Under Threat: The Denial of Adivasi Status in India

The official reluctance to use the term ‘Adivasi’ and the preference for ‘Janajati’ (Scheduled Tribe) is viewed by some as an attempt to downplay Adivasis’ historical claim as original inhabitants. This is not merely a semantic issue; it has significant implications for identity and rights.

The Shift to ‘Janajati’

The shift from acknowledging ‘Adivasi’ to categorizing communities solely as ‘Janajati’ is seen as a form of historical whitewashing. The term ‘Adivasi’ inherently suggests ‘original dweller,’ implying a primary claim to the land. ‘Janajati’ simply means ‘tribe,’ removing this historical precedence from the term itself.

Legal Denial: The MSG2 Film Case

The denial of Adivasi identity has even manifested in legal proceedings. The film MSG2 faced an FIR for making racist comments about Adivasi groups. The case went to court, including the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in this matter (Case Number LPA -788/2015) stated that the film’s comments about Adivasis did not pertain to any community in India. The court effectively argued that the term ‘Adivasi’ isn’t officially recognized in the context of Indian communities; only ‘Scheduled Tribes’ are. Many see this ruling as an example of the judiciary side-stepping the core issue and denying the Adivasi identity.

The Struggle for Representation and Rights

Despite constituting a significant portion of India’s population (around 8-10% according to recent estimates), Adivasis face severe underrepresentation in institutions of power. These include the bureaucracy, media, judiciary, and legislature.

Lack of Participation in Governance

Historical oppression and the dominance of upper-caste Hindus in positions of authority are argued to be direct consequences leading to the low representation of Adivasis, sometimes cited as less than 1% in certain sectors. This lack of participation in the system means that Adivasi voices are often unheard, and their concerns are not adequately addressed.

The principle put forth is clear: if a community’s participation in governance, bureaucracy, and media does not reflect its population share, it indicates that others are usurping the community’s rights, and exploiting them. Given these stark figures, can India truly claim to offer equal opportunity today?

The Denial of Merit and Justification for Reservation

The argument of ‘merit’ is often used to justify the exclusion of Adivasis (along with Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes) from positions of power. This argument is seen as a tool of oppression, designed to prevent these historically disadvantaged communities from gaining their rightful share.

Using the analogy of a fish needing to swim in water and a monkey climbing trees, it is argued that different communities have different historical contexts and need different support systems. Treating everyone the same under the guise of ‘merit,’ especially when historical advantages exist, is deemed a method of exploitation to deny the original inhabitants their share.

It is asserted that Reservation was introduced precisely because dominant groups, likened to the mythological character Dronacharya, would always find ways to deny opportunities to the disadvantaged, just as Eklavya was denied his archery skills by Dronacharya.

The Brutality of Oppression: Case Studies

Horrific incidents of violence, discrimination, and injustice mar the history of Adivasis. These are not isolated events but form part of a systemic pattern of oppression.

The Nanda Bai Case (Kailas vs. State of Maharashtra)

A harrowing example is the case of Nanda Bai, an Adivasi woman from Maharashtra. In 1990, Nanda Bai, who was pregnant and had a disabled brother and mentally ill sister, was involved in a relationship with an upper-caste man named Vikram. Upon discovering her pregnancy, Vikram and others (Kailas, Balu, and Subhadra) brutally assaulted her. They tore off her clothes and paraded her naked through the streets while kicking and beating her, despite her pregnancy.

Initial court proceedings in Ahmednagar in 1998 resulted in minimal penalties for the accused under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court imposed a meager fine of ₹100 and minor sentences. This outcome sparked outrage, highlighting the justice system’s failure to adequately address such heinous crimes.

The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court, which, in 2008, acquitted them under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court cited the police’s failure to produce the victim’s caste certificate as the grounds. The court merely increased the fine from ₹100 to ₹5000.

Critics heavily criticized this decision for ignoring the atrocity’s gravity and the social context. It demonstrated how procedural technicalities were used to deny justice to an Adivasi victim.

Other Documented Incidents

The Nanda Bai case is not unique. Several other incidents highlight the vulnerability of Adivasi women:

In 2010, in West Bengal’s Birbhum district, perpetrators paraded an Adivasi girl named Sunita Tudu Murmu naked for 8-9 hours across three villages. An MMS of the incident was reportedly made, allegedly because she had a relationship with a Muslim boy. The son of the local chief, reportedly linked to a Leftist organization, was allegedly involved.

• In November 2007, individuals paraded a Santhal Adivasi girl naked on the streets of Guwahati throughout the day.
• In 1977, in Maharashtra, policemen raped an Adivasi girl named Mathura inside a police station. The lower court initially acquitted the accused policemen, branding the victim as of ‘bad character’. Public outcry led the High Court to later sentence the policemen to life imprisonment.
• The case of Soni Sori, an Adivasi activist from Bastar, and the alleged torture she faced in police custody is also widely known.

These incidents, many of which do not even reach the media, underscore the pervasive violence and lack of accountability Adivasi women and Adivasis in general face. A key question arises: Why do organizations vocal on other issues remain silent on such brutal atrocities against Adivasi individuals, particularly women, who are often considered Hindu by these same groups?

The Judicial System and Justice: The Supreme Court’s Intervention

While lower courts and segments of society have faced criticism for their inadequate response to atrocities against Adivasis, a significant judgment by the Supreme Court in 2011 provided a ray of hope.

The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling

The appeal in the Nanda Bai case eventually reached the Supreme Court. On January 5, 2011, a bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra delivered a judgment widely seen as crucial and progressive. The verdict ruled in favor of the victim, Nanda Bai.

The judgment notably addressed the historical injustices faced by Adivasis, emphasizing that they are likely the descendants of India’s original inhabitants. It lamented their current state: forming only about 8% of the population, plagued by poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, disease, and land alienation.

The court highlighted the discriminatory behavior of the majority population, largely descendants of various immigrant groups, towards the Adivasis. It meticulously examined the process of persecution in the Nanda Bai case, noting how witnesses turned hostile because the accused belonged to dominant and powerful sections of society.

The court also severely criticized a statement made by one of the accused regarding Nanda Bai’s torn clothes, claiming that Bhil people (a tribal group) wear torn clothes due to poverty. The Supreme Court deemed this statement indicative of the accused’s depraved mindset, which did not even accord Adivasis the dignity of human beings.

Criticism of Lower Courts and Government

The Supreme Court expressed astonishment that the Bombay High Court had acquitted the accused under the SC/ST Act simply because the police had failed to produce the victim’s caste certificate during the investigation.

Furthermore, the court reprimanded the Maharashtra state government for not making efforts to increase the punishment for the accused, despite the public humiliation and brutality inflicted on the Adivasi woman. The court stated that the punishment given was far too lenient compared to the crime’s severity.

The judgment acknowledged that atrocities against Adivasi communities are committed not only by upper-caste Hindus but also by individuals from other sections of society.

The Judgment’s Significance

The 2011 Supreme Court judgment in the Nanda Bai case is considered a milestone for the Adivasi community. It delivered justice to the victim after 16 and a half years and, more importantly, explicitly recognized the historical context of injustice against Adivasis. The judgment, line by line, reportedly took into account the suffering of the Adivasi community. Given the lack of Adivasi representation in the judiciary, this verdict is seen as particularly significant for advocating for Adivasi interests and rights.

Historical Injustices: Lessons from Mythology and History

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Nanda Bai case referenced historical and mythological examples to underscore the long history of injustice against disadvantaged groups, including Adivasis.

The Eklavya Episode in the Supreme Court Judgment

A prominent example cited in the judgment (specifically at point number 38) was the story of Eklavya from the Mahabharata’s Adi Parva. The court recounted how Eklavya, a skilled archer from a lower caste, was refused training by Dronacharya. Eklavya then practiced using a statue of Dronacharya and achieved great skill. Dronacharya, in a request for Guru Dakshina (teacher’s fee), demanded Eklavya’s right thumb, effectively crippling his archery skills so that his favored student, Arjuna, would remain unparalleled.

The Supreme Court’s judgment explicitly called this act by Dronacharya “shameful“. It questioned the basis on which Dronacharya demanded a fee, especially the right thumb, from someone he had refused to teach. The court highlighted the discriminatory motive behind the demand – to prevent Eklavya from surpassing Arjuna.

This reference serves to draw a parallel to how powerful groups historically and systemically hamper talented individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to maintain their supremacy. It serves as a historical justification cited by the court for the need to correct such imbalances.

Evidence of Adivasis as Original Inhabitants

The judgment also explored the question of India’s original inhabitants, referencing sources such as The Cambridge History of India, Volume I. The court’s view, based on available evidence, was that Adivasis resided in the Indian subcontinent even before the arrival of the Dravidians, and current groups like Bhils and Mundas are their descendants.

Historical accounts, such as those found in the World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous People, reportedly highlight the glorious history of groups like the Bhils. These accounts mention how others brutally suppressed them in the 17th century, often catching and killing them as criminals in attempts to wipe them out. Many were forced to hide in forests and caves.

Myth, Faith, and the Call for Justice for Other Figures

The discussion touches upon the use of mythology in judicial decisions. While the Supreme Court used the Eklavya story to illustrate historical injustice, some criticized this as relying on myths.

In response, it is argued that the Allahabad High Court set the precedent of using faith or myth in judgments in the Ayodhya land dispute case. The Allahabad High Court’s ruling reportedly stated that since the faith of Hindus holds that Ram was born in Ayodhya, it should be accepted as fact.

It is provocatively suggested that if faith is the basis for judgment, like a carpenter using only one specific tool from a vast toolbox for every task, are we not risking a distorted and incomplete structure of justice? If so, courts should also open cases regarding the killings of figures like Shambuka, Hiranyakashipu, Bali, and the attack on Surpanakha (figures depicted in religious texts often portrayed as antagonists or those who clashed with central divine figures), as depicted in religious texts, and assess their morality and legality based on the same principle. The outcomes of such cases, it is implied, would be “interesting”.

The Ongoing Battle for Land, Forest, and Water

Despite historical recognition as inhabitants closely tied to the land, Adivasis continue to face displacement and exploitation of their resources.

Exploitation by Corporations

Governments, regardless of their ideology, are often criticized for being eager to hand over Adivasi lands, forests, and water resources to corporations and capitalists. Since Adivasi communities traditionally reside in forest areas, their homes and sources of livelihood (Jal, Jangal, Zameen – Water, Forest, Land) are increasingly under threat. Forests are cleared for industrial projects, mining, and other development activities.

The conflict between Adivasi communities fighting to protect their ancestral lands and the state, often siding with corporate interests, remains a major challenge. This conflict often leads to violence, with Adivasis frequently caught in the middle of state action and groups labelled as ‘Naxals’. The fear that anyone protesting their displacement can be branded a ‘Naxal’ is also highlighted.

Challenging the Narrative: Identity and Agency

Historical suppression and misrepresentation have created confusion and debate regarding the Adivasi identity and their path forward.

Reclaiming Identity in the Face of Conversion

Historically, when Christian missionaries arrived in India, they engaged with Adivasi communities, establishing schools and providing education and healthcare. This engagement and the opportunities it provided led many Adivasis to convert to Christianity, a fact that reportedly causes consternation among Hindu nationalist organizations.

It is argued that the reason Adivasis were drawn to Christianity was the positive engagement and opportunities the missionaries offered, contrasting sharply with the oppression and denial faced from dominant Indian society. A question is posed: what did Hindu society offer Adivasis in return for their identity?

The Path Forward: Focus on Adivasi Identity

In the current era of globalization, it is suggested that Adivasis no longer need to convert to another religion. Instead, they should focus on reclaiming and strengthening their own unique identity and culture. While respecting the positive contributions of groups like Christian missionaries, it is argued that Adivasis should concentrate their energy on fighting for their own community’s existence and rights, rather than promoting or justifying other religions.

The call is for Adivasi youth to pursue education, enter the mainstream, and gain representation in all spheres of power. It is stressed that unless Adivasis gain significant presence in institutions like the judiciary, their fight for justice will continue to be challenging.

Conclusion: A Call for Recognition and Justice

The journey of India’s Adivasi population is a testament to resilience in the face of centuries of denial, marginalization, and brutal oppression. From the historical distortion of their past by colonial and dominant narratives to the ongoing struggle for basic rights and representation, their story is a critical, yet often ignored, part of the Indian reality.

The denial of their status as original inhabitants, the horrific incidents of violence and lack of justice, and their systemic exclusion from positions of power highlight the deep-seated prejudices they face. While landmark judgments like the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling offer moments of hope and validation, the daily struggle for dignity, justice, and the protection of their land and culture continues.

Understanding the true history and the systemic nature of the challenges faced by Adivasis is the first step towards fostering a more just and equitable society. It requires acknowledging the historical wrongs, challenging prevalent biases, and actively working towards ensuring their rightful place and representation in all aspects of national life.

What you can do?

• Educate Yourself: Seek out and read books and resources that present the history and perspectives of Adivasi communities, such as “Adivasi Chintan Ki Bhumika” by Ganga Sahay Meena or works by Ranjit Sahay and others mentioned. [insert image here – 8.22]
• Amplify Adivasi Voices: Support platforms and individuals from Adivasi communities who are speaking about their history, culture, and struggles. Encourage them to enter mainstream discourse.
• Advocate for Representation: Understand the importance of representation in bureaucracy, judiciary, media, and legislature. Support initiatives that promote the inclusion of Adivasis in these sectors.
• Challenge Discrimination: Be aware of the biases and stereotypes against Adivasis and actively challenge them in your own interactions and communities.
• Connect Across Communities: Recognize the shared struggles of historically marginalized groups like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes and support solidarity efforts to achieve collective justice and representation.

Disclaimer

The following terms are used within the context presented in the article:

• Adivasi / Indigenous / Desaj: Refers to communities considered the original inhabitants of a land, pre-dating later migrations or settlements.
• Janajati / Scheduled Tribe (ST): An official term used in India to categorize certain tribal communities, which, in the context of the transcript, is sometimes contrasted with ‘Adivasi’ to denote a perceived governmental denial of the ‘original inhabitant’ status.
• Shraman: Refers to ancient ascetic traditions in India, often associated with forest dwelling, and linked to Adivasi communities in the transcript’s discussion.
• Mahayana: A major branch of Buddhism, mentioned in the transcript in relation to the development of idol and image making, occurring historically later than the Shraman traditions discussed.
• Brahminic History: Refers to historical narratives perceived in the transcript as being dominated by or written from the perspective of the Brahminical system, often excluding or distorting the history of other communities.
• Merit: Used in the transcript to describe an argument often employed to justify exclusion from positions of power, seen as a tool to deny representation to marginalized groups regardless of their capabilities.

You can read the book here!!

Adivasi Chintan Ki Bhumika

The new economic policies of the Indian government have accelerated the exploitation and oppression of tribal communities, leading to a more vocal resistance. The nature of both the exploitation and its resistance was national, and consequently, the creative energy that emerged from this resistance was also national in scope. The contemporary Adivasi literary movement is the name given to this creative energy that emerged at a national level to protect Adivasi identity and existence.
It is the creative intervention of a transformative consciousness that strongly opposes any form of discrimination against the descendants of the country’s indigenous inhabitants and stands with their right to ‘self-determination’ to protect their water, forests, land, and lives.

Buy Now

Read more about the True History of Aurangzeb!!

Find out more about the Truth of Ayodhya.

Do you disagree with this article? If you have strong evidence to back up your claims, we invite you to join our live debates every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday on YouTube. Let’s engage in a respectful, evidence-based discussion to uncover the truth. Watch the latest debate on this topic below and share your perspective!