Adivasi Welfare: Relevance of Elwin–Nehru model

The Indian state neither followed isolationist nor respectable integrationist approach but ruthlessly assimilated Hindu caste structures and socially regulated capitalist economy. Since past two decades, the economic nation has given way to globalization in the country in the form of economic reforms. It has not only changed the developmental paradigm but the way we look at Adivasi development also. The process has integrated national economy into global economy, now economic growth has been assumed as new measurement of development

After attaining political independence in 1947, Indian state aspired to have a sharp break with the inherited colonial economic policy of Laissez-faire. That break was aimed at planned development oriented towards economic policy change i.e. autarky and building socialism. Historically, one of the important groups that have been at the receiving end both in social and economical terms are Adivasis. To develop such historically subjugated people a sound developmental philosophy had to be in place, otherwise, independence would mean nothing to these people. In this context, colonial anthropologists had played a crucial role as advisors to the colonial and native princely rulers on various Adivasi issues and have pioneered anthropological research in the country.

British philanthropist and missionary- turned- anthropologist Verrier Elwin has played a historical role in this regard. Elwin, a citizen of Great Britain, came to India in 1927 as a Christian missionary. He kept on studying the Adivasis throughout his life; first in Central India then in the Northeast. He took Indian citizenship in 1954; Nehru appointed him as anthropological adviser to the government of India and assigned him the task of implementing the Adivasi welfare programs particularly in northeast. Thus, both Nehru and Elwin have contributed to the Adivasi development discourse in India.

On Tribal Poverty

In Nehruvian poverty formulation, the concept of caste, tribe and minority were put on a common platform, but Elwin’s concept of poverty was strictly confined to the Adivasis. His approach therefore resorted to multi-pronged interventions. On one such occasion, he described tribal poverty to a large audience in the Rotary Club of Bombay:

“In Bastar state, once a Maria was condemned to death and on the eve of execution they asked him if there was any luxury he would like.

He asked for some chapatti and fish curry made like city style. They give it to him and he ate half of it with great enjoyment then wrapped the remainder up in the left plate and gave it to the jailor telling him that his little son was waiting outside the prison door. The boy had never tasted such a delicacy but he should have it now”. In Elwin’s opinion, ‘poverty is not only the epitome of material deprivation; it is also an indicator of a lapse of human compassion’. For Elvin it was the colonial rulers, Hindu moneylenders and landlords who uprooted the tribes from their indigenous production system and put them into the peasant production network.

Adivasi Development Approaches

While Nehru was, busy in formulating a broad-based, effective approach for the development of the entire nation, Elvin insisted on a separate tribal development approach which is known as “leave them alone”, “national park” or “isolationist” approach. It means, letting Adivasis living their own way, not infringing on their economic space and allowing them to grow in their self-created or self-designed development discourse.

Nehru advocated the principle of avoiding the two extreme courses - that the Adivasis should not be kept as anthropological specimens in the intellectual net for mere study and they should be protected from the exploitative grip of outside society. However, he was not in favour of permanent isolation, rather he suggested selective and voluntary accommodation of advanced technology and culture. His development policy was based on the value of gradualism and passive interference of the state alongside all the other philanthropic overtones.

Elvin’s isolationist approach came from his study on the Baiga Adivasis. The Baigas who were victims of severe exploitation dreamt of Baiga Raj- Baiga sovereignty with a Gandhian sense of self-reliance, in which they would have their own king and no exploitation by outsiders. The dream of Baigas having their own kingdom was translated into’ national park’ approach by Elwin. He wanted his approach to have a wider application to cover tribes living in all regions of India. He therefore, approached Gandhi to seek his approval; Gandhi however denied any such separate provision for the aboriginals, just as he denied separate electorates for the Depressed Classes in 1932.

Along with Gandhi, other Congress minded Hindus heavily criticised Elvin’s approach, labelling it anti-national. Elwin deflected all these remarks, describing himself as “protectionist”, not “isolationist”. He was protectionist because he was opposed to the subservience of the Adivasis to the caste Hindus in the process of development. After his studies in NEFA, Elwin changed his isolationist approach into neither isolation nor assimilation but to integration. As isolation aims at conscious separation of the Adivasis from the political and economic mainstream.

Assimilation enables the Adivasis partial and involuntary subservience integration, in contrast, which is a respectable merger with the mainstream, staking a claim to an equal share of power and resource as any other citizens. The Indian state neither followed isolationist nor respectable integrationist approach but ruthlessly assimilated Hindu caste structures and socially regulated capitalist economy. Since past two decades, the economic nation has given way to globalization in the country in the form of economic reforms. It has not only changed the developmental paradigm but the way we look at Adivasi development also.

The process has integrated national economy into global economy, now economic growth has been assumed as new measurement of development. Earlier planned development process benefitted non- Adivasis at the cost of Adivasis and now growth-led development has been destroying Adivasis lives everywhere. Multi-National Mining Companies have entered into earlier isolated Adivasis areas and driving away and depriving their vital source of livelihood in the lands of ancestry. For Adivasis modern institutions like civil society, state and market have done unbearable harm.

Caste Hindu civil society represents an exploitative and exclusionary social structure. State, both colonial and post-colonial developmental state and now the police state (which treats Adivasi resistance from the law and order point of view) is equally culprit in alienating the Adivasis. Elwin and Nehru’s strategic and gradual integration of Adivasis in to mainstream civil society, state and market has become more relevant now than the Nehruvian era. Elwin’s approach has capacity to establish Adivasis rights over “jal-jamin-jangal”. It is the time to retrieve his legacy.

(The writer is a faculty in the Department of Social Exclusion Studies, School of Inter-Disciplinary Studies, The English and Foreign Language University)

By Venkatesh Nayak Vaditya