TheDaak review

Nomads in the Pursuit of Justice: A Case of Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Challenges

By Vishal Rathod

Indian society is distributed into castes and tribal communities; there are about 1500 major and minor castes, and about 600 tribal communities. It fundamentally operates on a hierarchical, discriminatory caste system. This rigid structure inhibits upward mobility within its ranks, ensuring that higher castes consistently enjoy greater social, cultural, and political privileges compared to lower castes. This system remains deeply entrenched in India. Some castes live in villages, while others do not have a place within the village structure and live outside of it. Nomadic tribes are communities that move from place to place rather than settling permanently in one location. These communities live outside the village without settling in it. Originally, they were not part of the caste system, though contemporary times have forced them to adopt a place within it. There is considerable diversity among nomadic tribes, with each tribe having its own language and rituals, highlighting the variety within the nomadic community. Traditionally, these communities had been hunter-gatherers, nomad-traders, shepherd-pastoralists, and people who showcased their traditional skills and displayed folk customs as they travelled from village to village to earn an income. The life of nomadic tribes was never self-sustaining. Scheduled tribe communities can live independently in the forests, and scheduled caste communities have been at least partially integrated into the village system of mutual interdependence. However, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes cannot live independently of the village system. Despite their reliance on the village system, nomadic tribes could not become part of the village, nor were they ever permanently accepted by it.

These communities have been in continuous conflict with the state, system and society for centuries to preserve their way of life and a distinct value system. For example, in the colonial period, the wandering mercenary soldiers were mostly from nomadic communities and would have become a threat to the stability that the company rule sought, and thus something had to be done about it. As David Arnold points out, “To the colonial regime crime and politics were almost inseparable: serious crime was an implicit defiance of state authority and a possible prelude to rebellion; political resistance was either a “crime” or the likely occasion for it.” (Dandekar 2021, 119). The colonisers always had a fear of nomadic people, a fear that they acquired from their experience with vagabonds back in Britain. There, the vagrants and vagabonds had posed a serious threat to established order and property during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Bhukya 2010, 74). Some tribes having trading occupations historically, posed a threat to colonial monopoly over the trade of some essential commodities. For example, “The Banjara community of Deccan and central India held significant control over the salt and grain trade in the central province, while the Koracha community also dominated grain and salt trade in Madras province. This resulted in revenue loss for the East India Company, which faced trade limitations as a direct consequence.” (Radhakrishna 2001, 28). Consequently, all nomadic communities were viewed with suspicion by the colonial British rulers. 

Also, for any governing body, it’s difficult to manage and regulate wanderers rather than the settled. Therefore, nomadic communities such as the Lambadas of Deccan and western India were compelled to settle down, contrary to their traditional way of life. This state initiative severely hampered their cattle raising and agricultural activities, which was further worsened by a series of severe famines and other external factors. In desperation, several nomadic tribes from subaltern communities turned to theft and dacoity.

The colonial state interpreted dacoity through the lens of the caste system, which they believed to be the essence of Indian society and inherently hereditary. Colonial administrators and ethnographers equated caste with occupation and vice versa. Hindu texts broadly classified jatis (castes) as pure or impure, attributing honesty or dishonesty accordingly. The colonial state adopted this perspective and linked it to their prejudiced notions of vagrants, gypsies, and nomads as being born criminals. Consequently, the authorities implemented various methods to control, regulate, and ostensibly reform these so-called “Criminal Tribes,” thereby socially stigmatising them.

In 1871, the Criminal Tribes Act was enacted to address such thefts and similar crimes, as they threatened English state authority. Under this act, almost two hundred nomadic tribes across the country were labelled as criminals, associating crimes, whether committed or not, with their identity. In essence, the 1871 Act gave the police considerable power over a large number of people. Under this sweeping piece of legislation, individuals from communities declared criminals were to register themselves and their families with the police. Any member of a Criminal Tribe community found absent from the village without a license a second time was to be punished with rigorous imprisonment for up to three years (Radhakrishna 2001, 29). This act mandated that those designated as criminal tribes be registered with local police stations, confined to specific villages, fined and punished, and placed in reformatories. Groups subjected to these measures found it difficult to earn an honest livelihood, increasing their likelihood of committing dacoity. Itinerant communities, which were particularly affected by these restrictions, suffered greatly (Bhukya 2010, 118). 

One important aspect of this Act was that the offenders were arrested not because of their actions, but because of their classification. Local officials were instructed to closely watch and control the activities of the Pardhis, Dhangars and Banjara communities for proper surveillance and regulation of these groups. In this way, the creation of a surveillance society served colonial ends. The theoretical concept of anthropology of the state, which focuses on how states manifest themselves in practice and their interactions with local communities, can be applied to the legal developments in law, order and regulation during the British colonial period and their impact on nomadic communities as mentioned by Ferguson and Gupta in 2002, “Verticality refers to the central and pervasive idea of the state as an institution somehow “above” the community. The state itself, meanwhile, can be imagined as reaching down into communities, intervening, in a “top-down” manner, to manipulate or plan society.” (Ferguson & Gupta 2002, 982)

Prominent initiative in this respect was the relocation of entire ‘criminal’ communities to settlements where they could be kept under close observation and, ideally, reformed. As Foucault says, the disciplinary state sought to create ‘docile bodies’ which involved the confinement of individuals within enclosed spaces (Foucault 1995). Criminal Tribes Act 1871 aimed to regulate and control specific communities deemed “criminal” based on colonial perceptions of their supposed criminal tendencies. Under this Act, these communities were subjected to strict surveillance, restrictions on movement, and forced settlement in designated areas (Radhakrishna 2001, 72). Elderly, women, and small children of the nomadic tribe were forcibly kept in the open spaces of this ‘settlement’. Men and women were made vethbigars (forced labourers) and joined the unpaid work of modern railway tracks and other colonial projects. Although some of these settlements were closed and some were open, they were a kind of prison. The rules of these prisons were oppressive. Even a baby born here in the prison was bound by those rules. Attending the settlement every morning and evening, again, night after night, the police came to the hut, pulled the bedclothes and looked at the people. Every morning, they were accounted for, after which they left for railway or mill work. If they wanted to go to other places, it was mandatory to get permission from management and the authorities. 

Furthermore, the Act can be seen as a manifestation of the ‘infrastructure of fear’ (Sur 2021, 123). The Act served to institutionalise the exploitation and oppression of certain communities while benefiting from the labour availability and economic interests. Connecting this to infrastructural oppression and exploitation by the government, the Act contributed to the systematic marginalisation and discrimination against these communities. Additionally, by labelling certain tribes as “criminal,” the government justified its oppressive measures, which often included the confiscation of land and resources from these communities. Moreover, forced settlement mandated by the Act disrupted the traditional ways of life and livelihoods of these communities, further worsening their socio-economic position. In this case, the government allocated separate places for nomadic tribes within the state, saying that these arrangements were made to reform the tribes. However, these designated settlements were not created to reform, empower or uplift the nomadic communities but to segregate and marginalise them from the rest of society. By confining the nomads to specific areas, the government aimed to exert control over their movements and limit their interactions with the broader population. They were denied access to resources and opportunities available to others in the state. “The practice of dealing with criminals separately in reformatory barracks was informed by a discourse of criminality in nineteenth-century Europe that stated that a criminal steals not because he is poor- for not all poor people steal-but because there is something wrong with his character, his psyche, his upbringing, his consciousness, and his desires.” (Bhukya 2010, 151)

In “Shamshera,” a mainstream commercial Hindi film, the narrative unfolds against the backdrop of the British colonial era, particularly focusing on the introduction of the Criminal Tribes Act. The film begins in 1871, the year British colonists passed the Criminal Tribes Act that notified entire communities as potential troublemakers. This legislation led to the confinement of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes into limited mobility settlements, akin to ghettos, where they faced oppressive colonial practices such as forced labour and alienation from their traditional migration and cultural customs. The movie portrays the state-enforced violence inflicted upon these marginalised communities by the colonial regime. The people oppressed by the state in the form of a uniformed policeman. The protagonist, who is born and raised within one of these settlements, becomes the focal point of resistance against the oppressive colonial forces. His story revolves around the struggles faced by nomadic tribes subjected to state-sponsored violence and exploitation, highlighting themes of resilience, identity, and rebellion against oppressive systems. In the movie, we see how the main character’s story reflects the tough times nomadic tribes went through during colonial rule. It shows how they faced violence and unfair treatment from the government. Despite this, the movie also highlights how these communities stayed strong and fought back against oppression. This example is a powerful way to talk about the effects of colonial policies on nomadic tribes and how people resist when faced with unfair treatment by those in power.

India gained independence in 1947, and the subsequent partition had a considerable impact on Indian society, particularly on communities residing in the borderlands. Among these, communities on the socioeconomic periphery were especially affected. The partition significantly impacted many nomadic tribes in these border regions, yet this dimension remains largely understudied. To address this gap, it is essential to examine the adverse effects of partition on these communities within the broader framework of justice, as explored through partition studies. 

Even after India gained independence, these communities were required to remain in their settlements for an additional five years and fifteen days. During the constitution-making process, nomadic tribes were effectively confined to their settlements and had no representation in the formation of welfare policies for independent India. After the independence of the country, the first Lok Sabha election was held in 1951. A total of 54 political parties in the country participated in that election. 1874 candidates stood for election across the country. Voting for the Lok Sabha elections began on 25 October 1951, but the last phase of voting ended on 21 February 1952. The first general election was conducted in as many as 68 phases. At all stages of this election, Nomadic tribes were kept inside the wired settlements. They watched the country’s first-ever democracy celebration from the barricaded windows of more than 52 jails (Bhosale 2022, 71). Consequently, these communities were excluded from the benefits of social and economic programs due to the policymakers’ lack of consideration for their unique needs and circumstances. Although the Nomads Act of 1952 granted freedom to nomadic tribes, societal stigma persisted, labelling them as “criminals” and excluding them from mainstream society, thereby criminalising their way of life. 

Many of the new policies of modern India, instead of providing protections to the Denotified Tribes similar to those extended to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, have deprived them of their traditional employment. Even after India’s independence, some communities previously labelled as ‘criminal’ under colonial laws continue to face the stigma. The Habitual Offenders Act continued to frame these communities as criminals despite their official denotification in 1952, perpetuating their marginalisation. The name of the Act was changed, but till 1992 communities like Kaikadi, Ramoshi, Pardhi, Kanjarbhat, Bhamta were being held under this Act. In India, the Wild Life Protection Act came, communities that initially used bears, snakes and monkeys for hunting were labelled as criminals when their activities became problematic, leading to severe consequences. The Magic and Drugs Act stopped the traditional business of medicine makers (vaidu) who made a living by selling herbs. The ‘Prevention of Beggary Act’ was enacted to starve Vasudeva, Bahurupi, Kadakalakshmi, Joshi, Gandhari, Gosavi and others who begged for alms in the name of god.

Coming to the related aspect of being a citizen of a nation-state, in the case of nomads, the idea of ​​the name of a region or country is not necessarily a priori. In the case of a nomadic society, the definition of ‘people with the same language or same culture or same race’ does not seem to be applicable because of the plurality they display (Bhosale 2022, 86). Whatever castes and tribes of nomads are roaming in the Indian territory, they have neither the same territory, nor the same language, nor the same culture, nor the race. The area where they practice their rituals or wandering business or even practice their specific language is called ‘Our Province’ (aapla ilakha) and ‘Foreign’ (pardes) to other provinces. So what will the idea of ​​a modern nation be like in terms of nomadism? According to the Balkrishna Renke Commission Report (2008), 98 percent of people from nomadic and semi-nomadic communities are homeless; they neither have their own land, nor they have necessary documents. Overall, 54 percent of people don’t have any valid official documents to prove that they belong to this country. Most of the people don’t have any birth certificates and accurate dates of their important life events. While some government schemes are designed to assist nomadic tribes, these programs need to be decentralised to effectively reach the communities that require them. The primary reason for the lack of access to government schemes is the absence of necessary documents required for daily official purposes. This issue is fundamentally rooted in factors such as large-scale illiteracy and insufficient administrative awareness, among others. Technically one can say, on paper, they are not even citizens of India. The situation for women among nomadic tribes is particularly grave, with significant challenges in gynecological health. Additionally, the carrying of criminal stigma and migration to unfamiliar regions for labour contribute to their physical, emotional, and financial exploitation by men from dominant castes and classes. Despite being illegal, the system of Jaat Panchayat continues to exercise considerable authority as a quasi-judicial body within these communities, disproportionately affecting nomadic women. Popularly, the idea of modernity in sociology consists of the nation-state, a stable economic system and a non-partisan judicial system along with other factors. But, if this part of the society has not been considered citizens, therefore, we can say modernity has been such a reverse in the case of nomads.

Coming back to the criminal stigma, in the infamous Dhule lynching case in Maharashtra, a mob murdered a group of nomads suspected of child lifting. The incident occurred when a group of Nathpanthi Davari Gosavi (a nomadic tribe) was passing through the region and was attacked by a mob over unfounded suspicions. Tragically, the attack resulted in the death of five individuals. The verdict highlights the grave consequences of misinformation and mob violence, particularly targeting vulnerable communities like nomads. The incident occurred on July 1, 2018. Also, the same incident happened in Sambhajinagar (erstwhile Aurangabad) district of Maharashtra in 2019. This incident of the Dhule lynching, along with other similar occurrences in recent times, underscores the persistent criminal stigma attached to the nomadic communities in India. This stigma stems from historical state-enacted colonial policies, particularly targeting nomadic tribes. Despite the abolition of such laws after 1952, the legacy of suspicion and discrimination against nomadic tribes persists in modern India. This ongoing marginalisation denies them the full rights and dignity of citizenship. Addressing grassroots issues requires enhanced access to quality education, efficient healthcare services and employment opportunities. These measures are essential for integrating these communities into mainstream society. Additionally, sustained efforts by the state and social organizations to eliminate the criminal stigma from societal perceptions are crucial for fostering long-term integration and acceptance. This issue extends, in a way, beyond mere political citizenship to encompass social citizenship, wherein marginalised communities are denied the rights and recognition necessary for meaningful participation in society. But unfortunately, even after the persistent advocacy by scholars and activists from the communities, government and administrative responses remain insufficiently effective in addressing the needs of these populations.

Despite being labelled as vimukta or liberated after being denotified in 1952, the reality is far from freedom for the nomads. The question persists: are they truly liberated from this criminal stigma?

Bibliography 

Bhosale, Narayan. Bhatkya Vimuktanchya Itihasachi Sadhane (The Historical of Nomadic and Marginalised Communities). Maitri Prakashan, 2022.

Bhukya, Bhangya. Subjugated Nomads: The Lambadas under the Rule of the Nizams. Orient BlackSwan, 2010.

Dandekar, Ajay. “Silent Voices, Distant Dreams: India’s Denotified Tribes.” In Being Adivasi: Existence, Entitlements, Exclusion, edited by Abhay Flavian Xaxa and G.N. Devy, Penguin Books, 2021.

Devy, G. N. A Nomad Called Thief: Reflections on Adivasi Silence. Orient Longman, 2006.

Ferguson, James, and Akhil Gupta. “Spatializing States: Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality.” American Ethnologist 29, no. 4 (2002): 981-1002.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Radhakrishna, Meena. Dishonoured by History: ‘Criminal Tribes’ and British Colonial Policy. Orient BlackSwan, 2001.

Renke Report. National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes. 2008.

Sur, Malini. Jungle Passports: Fences, Mobility, and Citizenship at the Northeast India-Bangladesh Border. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021.