Revisiting Major Approaches to Tribal Development in India: A Brief Review of Isolationist,Integrationist and Assimilative Approaches

Verrier Elwin and Isolationism

Verrier Elwin, a British citizen who ventured into India in 1927, purportedly for missionary activities, advocated the basic elements of Isolationism as a strategy to deal with tribal development and related issues. Although he came here for religious purposes, his persistent dialogues and meetings with Mahatma Gandhi brought out the philanthropologist in him. Jamnalal Bajaj, an industrialist, was instrumental in diverting his interest to the atypical life of tribal communities in the country (Rath, 2006). Verrier Elwin asserted that as the tribal communities exhibit a way of life quite distinct from the plainsmen, tribal people ought to be given special consideration. Any specifically designed attempt to modify or modernize them will boomerang by way of thwarting their original way of life. Tribal communities suspiciously look at the programmes aiming at their emancipation from economic and social hardships, which, they believe, would impede their cultural and social fabric. Therefore, development policies must be designed in such a way that they allow the tribal communities to progress in their self-created and self-centred style. Implicitly, this argument invalidates the philosophical foundation of all endeavours, including all tribal development initiatives. Elwin always took the view that it would be better for tribal communities to maintain a safe distance from the untoward influence of the mainstream population as many of the elements of modernism might not be conducive to the existence of tribal communities. Indeed, it is quite natural if one could find any similarity between Elwin’s approach and the famous Gandhian ideas of a village self-sufficient economy. To substantiate his argument in favour of keeping tribal people ‘isolated’, Elwin went to the extent of pointing out the demand for the Baiga community for Baiga Raj as an example of separatist demand to keep themselves in isolation (Elwin, 1939).

It is obvious that Elwin’s view of isolationism might have been influenced by two prominent factors (Rath, 2006). First, due to administrative and political reasons, the British rulers adopted a policy of keeping tribal people away from the influence of the plainsmen. The British found it extremely difficult to look after areas where tribes used to settle, and therefore they wanted them to have an isolationist life. Apart from this, they found administering tribal areas uneconomical in many respects. Indeed, they could have administered tribal areas had they wished, but they knew that this would bring nothing to their exchequer. Thus, it is obvious that the British wanted tribal communities to be kept away from the untoward influence of the so-called plainsmen due to the fear that it would politically pollute the tribal communities, and the tribal communities might, in course of time, question the deadliest and exploitative British policies, threatening the very existence of British rule in India. The second factor that influenced Elwin to argue for isolationism, according to Rath, was the attitude of anthropologists specializing on the studies of tribal communities in India. The anthropologists, especially in India, purely for academic reasons, wished to see the tribal communities isolated in a zoo or a museum completely cut off from the mainstream societies, as this would immensely benefit them at least academically.

It was quite unsurprising, given the position that Gandhi had taken against all kinds of ‘separatist’ approaches, including the case of separate electorates for Harijans, that Gandhi did not agree with Elwin’s isolationist approach towards tribal development, citing that it would end up in the separation of ‘electorates’ in India. Following the footsteps of Gandhi on the question of approving the ‘isolationist approach’, many other scholars such as G. S. Ghurye and M. N. Srinivas also did not endorse the views of Elwin. Ghurye was critical of Elwin’s view, arguing that Elwin was attempting to break the ties between the Hindus and the tribal communities (Ghurye, 1943). M. N. Srinivas was of the view that isolationism would be detrimental to the life and livelihood of tribal communities in the long run and that, in place of isolationism, elements of modernity should be furthered among the tribal communities. These criticisms levelled against Elwin were turned down by Elwin himself, and he started claiming himself as a ‘protectionist’ rather than a mere ‘isolationist’ (Rath, 2006).

Ironically, the book written by Elwin in 1957 after visiting the North East brings out significant instances that made a remarkable transformation in the view of Elwin on tribal development. Having visited and interacted with the people living there, he felt the necessity to revise his previous view on the emancipation of tribal people, and he explicated that he stood only for the ad-hoc isolation of tribal communities, and not a permanent one as others interpreted it. Elwin went to the extent of saying that the chief issue was how to percolate down the fruits of modernism to tribal communities without thwarting their value system. The warning that modernity should not disturb the inherent principles of tribal communities sounds like Elwin’s newly articulated view, echoing his stand in favour of protectionism rather than isolationism. Interestingly, it is worth mentioning at this juncture that it was Elwin’s brain that worked behind the first draft of Nehru’s panchsheel—the five fundamental principles of tribal development (Guha, 2001). It calls for the economic and social advancement of tribal communities in constructive ways. Nevertheless, Elwin did not fully write off his views of isolationism till his last moment (Rath, 2006). Indeed, the tilt in favour of the integrationist approach seemed temporary as he called for the non-entry of politicians and researchers into the tribal settlement areas.

The isolation approach to tribal development was practiced often in pre-independent British India (Samal, 2001). In fact, it was thought to be a strategy of the British to put tribal communities in isolated worlds so that they could not come in contact with the mainstream people who were in general opposed to the British administration. Many a time, this isolated approach to tribal development gave room for the exploitative forces, namely landlords and others, who were sheltered by the British, to plunder the natural resources including land possessed by the tribal communities. Often, this flared up and culminated in sporadic tribal uprisings in many places in India during the British period. These uprisings were used by the British administration to make laws exclusively for tribal settlement areas, thus making isolationist strategy more pronounced in the British time as if these were to ensure the protection of tribal communities from the illegitimate aggression of the mainstream population. This policy of isolation made the tribal communities cut off from the mainstream population, thus writing off any opportunity for integration with the mainstream. In fact, the example of the North Eastern Himalayan Tribal, which later developed the sign of the separatist movement, stands as testimony to the brutal outcome of an isolationist strategy of development (Samal, 2001).

In the post-independent period as well, the democratically elected governments in India continued to adopt the isolationist strategy of tribal development, although not in full mode as it was in the pre-independent period. The continuance of this kind of strategy later culminated in the demand for separate tribal states in India, like the demand for separate states for Nagas and autonomous Jharkhand (Samal, 2001). In the financial disbursement in five-year plan proposals, separate amounts were earmarked for the tribal communities, thus making them set apart from the general people, and on many occasions, general funds were not used for the tribal communities.

The Nehruvian Strategy on Tribal Progress

Nehru’s view on tribal progress could be regarded as the modernists approach to tribal development. Nehru was diametrically opposite to the idea of treating tribal people as anthropological specimens. According to Nehru, the tribal people ought to be integrated with the plainsmen and, at the same time, they should not be subject to any kind of exploitation at the hands of plainsmen (Rath, 2006). It is true that Nehru opposed Elwin’s approach of putting tribal communities with all their cultural ethos and social relations into typically constructed isolated places quite alien to their original natural settings. Rather, Nehru embraced the idea that the benefits of modern science and amenities must be invariably infiltrated into the socio-economic life of tribal communities without damaging their value system. Therefore, it is obvious that the principle of ‘gradualism and passive interference of the state’ was the centre point of Nehru’s strategy of tribal development (Chand, 1989). His panchsheel for tribal progress is said to have been designed on the foundation of another panchsheel, which he proposed to have harmony among the nations in the international arena (Guha, 2001).

However, the view of Nehru in respect of issues pertaining to tribal people remains mistrusted on many points. It is true that one can find many spheres where the Nehruvian approach has hardly had any applicability. For instance, the heavy industrialization drive, the credit of which goes to Nehru thanks to his initiative in adopting the Mahalanobis Model during the Second Five Year Plan period, ultimately resulted in uprooting the tribal communities from their land (Rath, 2006). According to Rath, Nehru was right in his approach toward large-scale industrial development even at the cost of displacing people in certain instances, but he must have taken tribal people into confidence while devising such strategies.

Many historical instances of displacement of people from their original habitats could be traced out in support of the over-emphasis that Nehru paid to the industrialization process in India, which actually led to the impoverishment of many weaker sections. Apart from this, Nehru also attempted to introduce the policy of integrating tribal communities with the so-called plainsmen in anticipation of bringing positive modernist changes in the life of the tribal communities. A typical instance that deserves to be highlighted at this point is the description given in a book written by R. K. Barik on the rehabilitation of refugees from Bengal in the tribal zones of Koraput district of Orissa (Barik, 2006). This rehabilitation was done with the intention that such an attempt would lead to the integration of tribal communities with the relatively progressive refugees from Bangladesh, which might result in the development of tribal communities in the specified area. But, unfortunately, contrary to the expectation of the supporters of this approach, the Bengali refugees started forcefully taking land illegally from the tribal communities. Eventually, the unlawful activities of the settlers, the Bengali refugees, started destroying the traditional life and livelihood opportunities of the tribes, and subsequently, the tribal communities of this area became more impoverished. This ultimately paved the way for the tribal uprising in the area, leading to violence and social unrest.

Tribal communities live in the lap of nature, and this has been misinterpreted as ‘isolation’ or ‘aloofness’. But Nehru was not against the ‘modernization of tribal communities. He was of the view that ‘modernization’ should enable tribal communities to build on their cultural ethos and values. But it has now become a historical record that Nehru’s much-celebrated policies of heavy industrialization displaced tribal communities and dispossessed them of their land and cultural base. The setting up of large-scale industrial steel plants and aluminium enterprises in tribal belts of Odisha, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh stand testimony to this. In the name of integrating them with modernity, compensation was given to the displaced and disrupted tribal households in the form of money—the modern form of exchange—but in vain. Thrown to the ‘net’ of modernists from the ‘lap’ of nature, all in the name of integration, tribal communities have become the victims of modern industrialization.

Following the spirit of the integrationist strategy of tribal advancement, a two-dimensional approach has been followed in many pursuits of tribal development in India (Menon, 2003). This approach broadly focuses on two areas of tribal development, namely, promotional measures and protective measures. While the promotional measures rely on allocating resources and executing programmes aiming at equipping the tribal communities to earn a livelihood and lead a decent way of life, the latter, namely, the protective measures, attempt to safeguard the existing material property possessed by tribal communities and to insulate their cultural and traditional ethos from external aggressions. These protective measures often cover administrative and legal mechanisms evolved to ensure that the tribal communities continue to have their cultural and social fabric without being encroached on by the vested interests of the so-called mainstream hands. Indeed, at this juncture, it seems an affirmative integration strategy finds its relevance. That is, the integration should never be a forceful one, rather it should be designed in such a way that the tribal communities need to be integrated into the mainstream while ensuring that their integration does not disturb their social and cultural fabric. Sometimes this argument may lead us to believe that this often goes in tandem with the propositions of an isolated approach to tribal development, but it is not. The isolation approach calls for not making an attempt to integrate the tribal people with the mainstream, rather tribal people are assumed to be encircled in a particular place without having any contact with the outside world. In this approach, although the cultural and social fabric of the tribal communities will remain intact, their development does not happen on the lines envisioned by the planners and policymakers. In this context, the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) introduced at the beginning of the Fifth Five Year Plan could well be considered an integrated strategy of tribal development (Menon, 2003). But a Planning Commission report on the efficacy of this plan to bring about desirable changes in the life of tribal communities reveals that nothing desirable has been made in the life of tribes. The report further goes on to say that the execution of TSP has been beset with the employment of inefficient, ill-trained, insensitive and untrustworthy hands. It has been alleged that the entire endeavour toward TSP centered on allocating financing resources without any considerable regard to the ground realities existing in the tribal areas (Menon, 2003).

The ‘Assimilation’ School

Some anthropologists and economists stand for assimilating tribal communities into the mainstream culture. As G. S. Ghurye puts it, tribal communities are backward Hindus and, therefore, they must be assimilated into the broad Hindu culture (Oommen, 2011). D. N. Majumdar opines that it is not right to leave tribal communities to their destiny and that assimilating them to the Hindu culture does not seem to be so easy as well (Vidyarthi & Rai, 1976). Writers of Assimilation School favour a gradual transformation of tribal communities into the mainstream without thwarting the cultural habitat of tribal communities. Isolationist, assimilationist and even integrationist approaches have successively failed to emancipate this section of the population. Numerous laws have been enacted by state governments to safeguard tribal interests, but all in vain (Preet, 1994).

The assimilation approach seems retrogressive in its outcome as the adoption of this approach will result in tribal communities losing their cultural and ethnic identity. Hence, given the nature and culture of the tribal communities, assimilation does not appear to be a constructive approach to tribal development. Integration, on the other hand, is practically applicable in tribal development. But the real question in the integration approach is, with which kind of society are tribal communities going to be integrated? (Rudolf & Snvastava, 1994). If they are to be integrated with a caste-based society, their identity will surely be lost; if they are integrated with class society, they shall surely remain as a minority class; and only if they are integrated with a pluralistic-secular and democratic society, will they well be integrated without derailing their cultural and ethnic identity (Shilee & Shailee, 2002).

Three Pronged Strategy in Tribal Development

In the light of the earlier narrated three kinds of approaches to tribal development, it has become now evident that tribal schemes in India have been devised and executed taking into account the extent of tribal concentration in a particular area. Generally, tribal communities concentrate in a particular place, mostly near the forests. It is estimated that almost 94% of people in tribal communities live in rural areas (Padhi, 2005). These tribal communities keep themselves aloof from interacting with the mainstream communities and, hence, they appear to be not inclined to assimilate or integrate with the mainstream population. On the other hand, the tribal communities who live in the mainland along with the mainstream people, called ‘dispersed tribal communities’, tend to integrate themselves with the mainstream population, and in this case, it is apparent that integration appears to be a passive one. Yet another tribal group that merits attention is the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups that live in deep forests without any constant connection with the external world. In fact, these tribal communities could be regarded as the real isolated tribal communities that have been put and protected as if in a ‘national park’. Apparently, these Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups rarely make any attempt to disrupt their natural settings and value system by way of interacting or integrating with the mainstream communities. Curiously, development may mean different things to these tribal communities, given their intentions and circumstances.

At this juncture, it is worthwhile to throw some light on the three issues that mar the tribal development initiatives. The first is the level of exploitation that the tribal communities confront with. Unknown to the schemes and priorities, tribal communities are often trapped in the exploitative net of the implementing agencies and people. In India, several attempts have been made to ease the severity of the exploitative net by making necessary policy adjustments, especially in forest policies and land reforms. In fact, to address this problem, an overhauling of the tribal administrative system would suffice. The second is the lack of an effective delivery system for the newly devised and existing tribal programmes. Estimates show that most of the tribal schemes hardly benefit 10% of the targeted tribal households (Mohanty, 2020). It is evident that only with an effective delivery system can it be ensured that the benefits of schemes envisaged and executed for the tribal communities fully reach the deserving hands. The third and the most important lacuna is the limited absorption capacity of tribal communities. In simple parlance, absorption capacity refers to the ability to avail and use schemes without any induced adverse consequences. Many schemes fail to deliver desired results despite proper implementation, thanks to the limited absorption capacity of tribal communities (Lant et al., 2011).

A Case Study in Support of Integrationist Approach

As a case of the integrationist approach to tribal development, it is imperative to throw some light on the integration of tribal communities through the labour market. The following study illustrates how the labour market integration of tribal households can help in fostering their financial inclusion. This study was conducted among the four major tribal communities in the Wayanad District of Kerala State (Kumar, 2014).

MGNREGS and Financial Inclusion Among the Selected Tribal Communities: Certain Evidence from Kerala

In this study, we consider the influence of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) in the determination of the financial inclusion of tribal communities in the Wayanad district of Kerala (Kumar, 2014). Four tribal communities are brought under the purview of this study, namely, Kurichya, Kuruma, Paniya and Adiya. While the first two belong to the forward tribal communities as they hold more land assets, especially the Kurichya community, the latter two form the backward non-primitive communities in the district of Wayanad (Rajasenan, 2009). The study found that an overwhelming percentage of tribal households, to the tune of nearly 95% hailing from these communities, have accessed bank accounts. This means that financial exclusion/banking exclusion is extremely low among these tribal communities, thanks to financial inclusion initiatives that have been made by the banks in the Wayanad district. What is more encouraging is the fact that 73% of these tribal households are participating in MGNREGS works. This supports the argument of the theory of integration that inclusive growth can be effectively realized through the fruitful and constructive integration of the people with different segments of the labour market.

Obviously, an overwhelming percentage of tribal households possess MGNREGS accounts, revealing the significance of MGNREGS in making the tribal communities banking included (Dreze & Khera, 2011). However, some tribal households jointly hold MGNEREGS accounts together with savings bank (SB) accounts (22%). Indeed, 51% of tribal households possessing only MGNREGS accounts stand testimony to the fact that such an employment guarantee scheme can play a vital role in making people banking included. Unsurprisingly, the MGNREGS account and both ‘SB Account and MGNREGS account’ together are accountable for the banking inclusion of nearly 73% of tribal households, which unequivocally establishes the dominant role of a labour market intervention strategy in ensuring the financial/banking inclusion of the targeted people (Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Type of Accounts and the Tribal Communities.

Accounts	Different Tribal Communities				Total
	Kurichya	Kuruma	Paniya	Adiya
SB accounts	31.00	44.60	15.20	33.30	25.30
Post office account	1.00	0.00	0.00	7.00	1.10
MGNREGS account	44.00	14.90	68.70	33.30	50.80
SB account and MGNREGS account	24.00	40.50	16.00	26.30	22.80
Total	100	100.00	100	100	100.

Source: Field survey.

It may be of interest to probe further into the inter-tribal differences in the type of accounts possessed by various tribal communities under this study. Among the tribal communities, it is apparent that in the Kuruma tribe community, 44.60% of households hold only savings bank accounts while 40.50% keep both accounts jointly, that is, they hold MGNREGS and SB accounts together. Meanwhile, only 15% of Kuruma tribe households hold only MGNREGS accounts. Putting it differently, one can observe that compared to all other tribal communities, the percentage of Kuruma tribe households possessing only MGNREGS account is abysmally low. This perhaps points toward the fact that the Kuruma community, despite possessing fewer land assets compared to its counterpart, the Kurichya, is the most progressive tribal community based on many other parameters like education. On the contrary, among the Paniya, while 15.2% hold SB accounts, an overwhelming percentage (68.7%) of households appear to be holding an MGNREGS accounts. This again corroborates the importance of MGNREGS in equipping the most backward segment of people in getting access to bank accounts.

Quite interestingly, the Kurichya and Adiya, communities appear to be enjoying the same position when it comes to the question of holding bank accounts. Evidently, almost 30% of both Kurichya and Adiya households hold SB accounts. Likewise, around 24% of both communities possess ‘SB plus MGNREGS account’. Surprisingly, amongst the Kurichya, a forward tribal community possessing more land, and the elite among the tribal households, close to 69% of households hold only MGNREGS accounts. The active engagement of more members from this community in MGNREGS-related works is perhaps the main reason for this trend. Thus, it is obvious that the popularity of the MGNREGS programme among the tribal communities, particularly among women, has become the driving force in ensuring that a remarkably good number of tribal households hold at least one bank account.

Having analysed the extent of banking inclusion among the tribal communities via holding bank accounts, now, it would be interesting to enquire into the reasons for taking bank accounts.

Self-decision (29.1%), pressure from banks (10.5%), relational motivation or pressure from relatives and friends (5.9%), and MGNREGS (54.4%) appear to have influenced tribal households in opening bank accounts (Table 2). It is interesting to note the role of MGNREGS in making tribe households banking included by way of opening an account. MGNREGS makes it mandatory to disburse the payment to the account of beneficiaries, and, indeed, it is this mandatory provision that actually makes bank account essential for all beneficiaries (workers). This shows the undeniable impact of the labour market via an employment guarantee scheme like MGNREGS in making tribal communities much closer to the banking system, making them banking included and further integrating them with the entire gamut of the economic process. Hence, the best, quickest and easiest way to integrate the people with the economy is to connect the people first with the labour market and then with other spheres of economic activities.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Why Do Tribal Households Take Bank Accounts?

Why Do Tribal Households Take Bank Accounts?	Tribal Communities				Total
	Kurichya	Kuruma	Paniya	Adiya
Self-decision	48.00	58.10	13.60	24.60	29.1
Pressure from banks	3.00	13.50	9.50	24.60	10.5
Relational motivation	2.00	9.50	4.90	12.30	5.9
MGNREGS	47.00	18.90	72.00	38.60	54.4
Total	100	100	100	100	100

Source: Field survey.

Note: P-value is .00.

Tribe-wise analysis of the reasons for availing of bank accounts brings us very disquieting illustrations, although they do not in any way violate the commonsensical reasons. For instance, self-decision and MGNREGS almost score the same percentage when it comes to the case of the Kurichya community, whereas, among the Paniya, 72% of households attribute their bank accounts to the sole reason of the compulsion to open an account under the MGNREGS programme. However, it is worth mentioning that the Kuruma community stands out in this respect as the role of MGNREGS in making Kuruma households banking included happens to be very low as only 18.90% from this community opine that they have opened bank accounts due to the mandatory provision of MGNREGS programme. Most of the Kuruma households have been much motivated by the factor of ‘self-decision’ in opening an account with the banking system. The same story almost prevails in the case of the Adiya community too. It boils down to the fact that in two communities, namely, Kurichya and Paniya—one forward and the other backward—the role of MGNREGS in banking inclusion remains unquestionable by any standard, which again cements the argument that the integrationist approach via the medium of the labour market can be considered as a successful strategy in tribal development. Moving further, the study has shown a significant association between the reasons attributed to availing bank accounts and different categories of the tribal community (p-value being significant at 5% level).

Accessing bank accounts is only the first step in the process of financial inclusion. To create an inclusive financial system, people must be equipped with an array of financial instruments by which they can manage their resources. Access to credit, insurance, pension and other modern transaction devices such as ATM, debit/credit cards and mobile applications matter a lot in completely making a person financially included. For all this to happen, people must first get involved with the real economy like the labour market in a constructive way. In the present work, the integration of tribal households with the real economy via the labour market due to their participation in MGNREGS has helped them a lot in accessing other banking services (Table 3). Nearly three-fourths of tribal households in the present study opine that MGNREGS has been helpful in accessing other banking services as well.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Does MGNREGS Help in Accessing Other Banking Services?

Does NREGS Help to Access Other Banking Services?	Tribal Group				Total
	Kurichya	Kuruma	Paniya	Adiya
Yes, NREGS helps	75.0	58.6	79.3	61.7	73.4
No, NREGS does not help	10.9	10.0	2.4	6.4	5.7
No opinion	14.1	31.4	18.3	31.9	20.9
Total	100	100	100	100	100

Source: Field survey.

Concluding Observations

It is quite obvious that India has been a social laboratory of different approaches to the strategy of development. Although all strategies narrated earlier have been important at different levels of development experience, the integrationist strategy has been proved to be more practical in dealing with tribal issues in India. Social scientists and anthropologist may not disagree with the view that it is absolutely implausible to rely solely on any of the strategy for tribal development. A combination of strategies as warranted by prevailing conditions would be the best to deal with tribal issues. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the application of the isolationist approach to bring about development among the tribes will be an utter failure, especially in the light of drastic technological changes that the world has undergone in recent times. When the world changes day by day, embracing modernity to its finest shape, one can hardly think of a segment of the population being put in isolated places or national parks completely isolated from the rest of the world. It is true that confining the tribal communities in so-called settlements located in remote places and hills would impoverish them rather than bring light in their life. It is a natural necessity that the platform of development that we (the plainsmen) enjoy ought to be provided to tribes as well, not as a gift but as a right. Therefore, the integration of the tribal communities into mainstream life is the need of the hour. But such integration should not be at the cost of thwarting the original and nature-bound existence of the tribal communities. Integration ought to be designed on the lines of accepting the life and livelihood pattern of the tribal societies. Elements of modernity need to be adjusted in tune with the necessities and demands of the tribal communities. Laws must be re-enacted to ensure that the tribal properties including land and their access to forest and other resources remain intact and not being encroached upon by the plainsmen in the name of bringing modernity to their life. The long-cherished legitimate aspirations of tribal communities in India deserve to be incorporated in the development strategies in much more pronounced manner.

The panchsheel principles areas are as follows:

People should develop along the lines of their own genius and we should avoid imposing anything on them. We should try to encourage in every way their own traditional arts and cultures.