SPECIAL ARTICLE

Tribal Annihilation and Upsurge in Uttar Pradesh

A K Verma

Issues of identity, inclusion, social justice, political representation and empowerment form the backdrop of this enquiry that highlights the sufferings of tribals in Uttar Pradesh and points to a historical wrong that failed to recognise tribes in the state as scheduled tribes. This paper argues that contrary to conventional knowledge, UP has a substantial population of tribes who were excluded from constitutional and administrative category of scheduled tribes and wrongly placed in the lower/lowest categories of the Hindu social hierarchy. From a zero population of the scheduled tribes until 1970 to a population of one lakh in 2001 to an estimated 26 lakh plus in the 2011 Census is a bizarre story of tribal annihilation and upsurge in the state that warrants revisiting tribal issues. This will help to give them their due in political representation and socio-economic life as per their actual share in population.

This paper is based on the authors presentation at the Centre for South Asia, University of Wisconsin, Madison on Tribals in Uttar Pradesh: Issues of Identity and Political Representation on 8 November 2012. The author is especially grateful to Crawford Young, Emeritus Professor, Rikhil Bhavnani, assistant professor and Adam Auerbach, PhD candidate, all from the political science department, University of Wisconsin, and Lalita du Perron, the Centres Associate Director for their comments and questions. The author also thanks Swaminath, UP secretary, Akhil Bharatvarshiya Gond Mahasabha and activist Durga Prasad Gond, advocate, Kanpur, for helping him in this study, and Ian Duncan, University of Sussex, UK for making available some of his unpublished material on Adivasis in India. A K Verma (akv1722@gmail.com) is Chair, Department of Political Science, Christ Church College, Kanpur.

ttar Pradesh (UP) has long been treated as a non-tribal state where tribes did not merit consideration for inclusion in the scheduled tribes (STs) category created by the Constitution for according them afrmative action benets and political representation through reservation. This paper challenges the conventional wisdom and points out that there is a substantial number of tribes in UP that merits recognition as STs. Census 2011 data indicated a growth rate of about 2,500% decadal (2001-11) in the ST population in UP (Verma 2013), whereas it was just 17% during 1971-81, 23% during 1981-91 and 26% during 1991-2001 (Table 1, p 53). The very magnitude of this decadal growth rate, as reported in the 2011 Census (Verma 2013) is indicative of major wrongs at various levels in the political and administrative systems in identifying the STs. It also raises fundamental issues regarding the annihilation of tribal identity in UP and denial of justice and political representation to them in state and national legislatures. This paper argues that the annihilation of tribals in UP is contingent on a fundamental error made by the Constitution makers vis--vis the objective denition of parameters that should have been used to identify backward tribes and accord them ST status. In addition, a plethora of factors ranging from historical, constitutional, legislative, and administrative also contributed to the chaos in identifying the STs in UP. Based on census records, this paper starts with the tribal population in UP in 1891 and by scaling population gures on a time-scale of 120 years works-out their present numbers. The projected tribal population in UP at present appears very big. That is also supported by the 2011 Census data on ST households for UP (HH-5 Series Tables, Census of India 2011) which says that there are 5,12,649 ST households in UP; 3,59,499 rural and 1,53,150 urban.1 Based on earlier Census (1991 and 2001) reporting 5.2 persons per ST household on an average in UP, the ST population in UP in the 2011 Census could be estimated at 26 lakh plus though the ofcial data released puts the gures at 11,34,273 (Verma 2013). Thus, the unclear picture about the STs in UP is evident from the fact that in the census records, there are three sharp watersheds of the ST population in UP: 1950-70: zero STs in UP; two, 1971-2001: 1.07 lakh STs (excluding Uttarakhand); three, 2011: 26 lakh plus STs. If correctly identied and counted, the ST population in UP may be close to that at the national level, i e, 8.6%. Though some accretions were made in the ST population in UP in 2002-03 by Parliament when it legislated granting ST status to 17 tribal castes and sub-castes that were in the schedule caste (SC) category, many are still in the SC or Other Backward Class (OBC) categories. These latter are keen to be
december 21, 2013 vol xlviii no 51
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

52

SPECIAL ARTICLE

When the Constitution recognised a social category in Hindu society as SCs, there was a genuine rationale; Hindu society was typically hierarchical, composed of upper, middle and lower/lowest castes; there was discrimination against the lower/lowest castes to the extent that some of them were conTribal Annihilation in Uttar Pradesh sidered to be polluted and hence untouchable; and to termiTribal demography and identity in UP has been an under- nate that practice of untouchability, the lowest castes were researched area, and scholars have focused mostly on STs scheduled and called SCs. There was also an objective basis in identifying the castes that were scheduled the Table 1: ST Population and Decadal Growth Rate Census Indian Decadal ST ST ST ST Remarks fact of their being allegedly polluted and hence Year Population Growth Population Decadal Population Decadal untouchable. The untouchable castes were in Crore Rate % in India Growth Rate in UP Growth Rate known all over the country and hence, when in India (%) in UP (%) state-wise lists of SCs were drawn up there was 1901 23.83 no confusion. There were hardly any leftover 1911 25.20 5.7 castes who could complain of non-inclusion in 1921 25.13 (-)0.31 1,61,00,000 1931 27.89 11 2,24,00,000* 39.1 that list. 1941 31.86 14.22 2,47,00,000** 2.3 The same was not true for the STs. The Consti1951 36.10 13.31 1,91,00,000*** (-)22.6 # tution did not lay down any criteria for identica1961 43.92 21.64 2,98,83,470**** 57.6 # tion of STs. The matter was left solely to the discre1971 54.81 24.80 3,80,15,162 26.2 1,99,000 After the tion of the president who was expected to issue 1981 68.33 24.69 5,16,28,638 35.8 2,33,000 17 formation of state-wise notications in consultation with the 1991 84.64 23.85 6,77,58,380 31.2 2,87,901 23 Uttarakhand respective state governors. And any subsequent 2001 102.87 21.23 8,43,26,240 24.4 1,07,963 26 in 2000, modication in the notied ST list could be done 2011 121.01 17.60 10,42,81,034 23.7 11,34,273 950 lost 2,56,129 not by any notication, but only by Parliament 26,65,774## 2,500 STs. through law. *Hill and Forest Tribes, **Primitive Tribes, ***Tribes, ****Scheduled Tribes (as listed in census data). # Figures for 1951 and 1961 are not available because it was in June 1967 that five tribal castes - Bhotia, Buksa The term scheduled tribes is dened in Jaunsari, Raji and Tharu were notified as STs in UP and hence, their first census count could take place in 1971. Article 366 (25) of the Constitution as such tribes ## Though the Primary Census Abstract (UP) gives the ST population in UP as 11,34,273, the household ST data or tribal communities or parts of, or groups within and the data about number of married couples per household suggest ST population at double that number with much higher decadal growth rate (Verma 2013). such tribes, or tribal communities as are deemed Source: Compiled from various census reports of respective years. under Article 342 to be STs for the purposes of this recognised by the president of India in 1950 but not so much Constitution. Article 342 says: on tribes in the state per se (Kulkarni 1991; Sumedha 2001; (1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the governor thereof, by Shankar 1999; Singh 2008; Srivastava 2008; Sen, Burman public notication, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of and Nag 1974). It is unfortunate that the tribal discourse in UP or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purhas centred round STs and not on the hundreds of tribal castes poses of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. and sub-castes who were marginalised and derecognised as (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Schedtribes. An impression was created that most tribes lived in the uled Tribes specied in a notication issued under clause (1) any tribe hilly area of UP (now in Uttarakhand). If that were true, how or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal comcould one lakh STs in 2001 in the states well to 26 lakh plus munity, but save as aforesaid a notication issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notication. in the 2011 Census? The census points to an addition of about 25 lakh new STs after taking away the ST dominant This provision puts the onus on the president, in consultation Uttaranchal area (Uttarakhand). This indicates that there are with the governor, to identify tribes in that state for inclusion in a large number of STs in UP but due to the indifference of the ST category. Unlike in the case of Hindu society, pollution of governments, both central and state, they have not been castes could not be a criterion for such identication. Hence, there were no objective criteria in scheduling some tribes to taken cognisance of. The Constitution split our tribal society into two; one was the exclusion of others. The president, therefore, followed the STs, and the leftover tribals became the non-scheduled only subjective criteria for state-wise identication of STs, viz, tribes (NSTs). That was an arbitrary and unjust division because indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographitribal communities, unlike Hindu society, were neither hierar- cal isolation, shyness of contact with community at large, and chical nor did they practise untouchability. Hence, the division backwardness of a tribe. These criteria are well established into STs and NSTs deed all logic. Moreover, the Government and in tune with the 1931 Census, reports of rst Backward of India and the census did not recognise or maintain a cate- Classes Commission 1955, the Advisory Committee on Revision gory called NSTs. So, all those tribal castes and sub-castes of SC/ST lists (Lokur Committee), 1965 and the Joint Committhat were not accorded ST status were just banished from the tee of Parliament on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled domain of the tribal world and arbitrarily placed in the Tribes Orders (Amendment) Bill 1967 (Chanda Committee 1969) (Mukherjee 2008). Hindu social order. transferred to the ST category. The above-mentioned law, conferring ST status on some tribes in UP, is awed as it gives them ST status only in 13 districts of eastern UP while in the remaining 58 districts they are in the SC category.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

december 21, 2013

vol xlviii no 51

53

SPECIAL ARTICLE

But no quantitative parameters were developed to objectively determine whether a tribal caste/community was eligible or not for being enlisted as STs. How to judge the primitive traits or distinctive culture of a tribe so that it could qualify to become a ST? How much backwardness (objectively quantied) must be there in a tribal caste/community to be so recognised? There is no record to suggest that any attempt was made in that direction. The subjectivity of criteria for identication of STs gave enough handle to the local bureaucracy to arbitrarily identify some tribal caste communities as STs in a state while excluding others. This resulted in only ve tribal castes Bhotia, Buksa, Jaunsari, Raji and Tharu being accorded ST status in UP while hundreds of tribal castes and sub-castes were left out. Their exclusion was not only theoretically wrong, but made them suffer substantial deprivations. Zvelebil (1981: fn 2: 468) put it aptly
Whether or not a community is included into an ofcial list of scheduled communities is not a question of idle curiosity or purely theoretical importance, but of grave practical consequences: it pertains to the allotting of funds, starting of development schemes, proportionate allotment of places in educational institutions and welfare benet schemes, etc.

Two pertinent questions arise. One, what was the administrative mechanism through which it was decided to accord ST status to only ve tribal communities in UP, and were the decision-makers really convinced that all other tribal castes and sub-castes in UP did not meet the criteria for getting ST status? Two, what happened to those tribes who were not scheduled; where were they placed and what happened to their tribal identity?
Flawed Identification Mechanism

The president must have initiated the process of drawing up the ST list in UP by approaching the state governor in 1950 who, in turn, must have asked the home ministry, which would have forwarded the matter to divisional commissioners who would further forward the matter to district magistrates (DM). The DM has a team of subordinate ofcials called subordinate district magistrates or deputy collectors. Such subordinate ofcials are overall in-charge of a few tehsils, blocks and villages which are under administrative and revenue control of tehsildars, naib-tehsildars, block development ofcers, village patwaris and lekhpals. So, the actual identication of tribal castes and sub-castes is done by the village level functionary who is supposed to check from the village family register and from other revenue records and source the veracity of anyone claiming to belong to a particular tribe or caste. As on date, there is a set of modalities decided upon by the union cabinet committee for inclusion in and exclusion from the list of STs. They pertain to both individual claims and collective claims of communities and castes in different states.2 Individual claims need certication by the DM or gazetted ofcers or revenue ofcers not below the rank of tehsildars.3 However, there is no literature that throws light on the exact modality of how the nodal ministry, the Ministry of Tribal Welfare, went about the identication
54

process state-wise and how in UP the politico-administrative machinery went about the same in 1950. However, it is clear that in this process of scheduling tribes, the decision that only ve tribal castes would be given ST status must have been taken at the top politico-administrative level in UP as a matter of policy in 1950; and that once the policy decision was taken, the DMs would have been given the mandate to collect ST gures district-wise. It appears that there was gross indifference to the identication and enumeration processes at both levels. At the policy level, there was no reason to consider only ve tribal communities as STs, and at the politico-administrative level, there was no inclination to count those ve identied STs. The government of UP is at serious fault as it failed to honour the Scheduled Tribes Presidential Order 1950 because it did not even care to notify those ve tribes as STs in UP for 17 long years. Obviously, there was no question of their identication and enumeration district-wise and hence the census also chose to ignore them in spite of the presidential order. That resulted in the census reporting zero STs in UP in the 1951 and 1961 enumerations. Thus, according to the UP government and census, there were no ST castes in UP, whereas the same government had communicated to the president through the governor the existence of ve ST castes in UP in 1950. The Government of UP woke up in 1967 and issued orders notifying the Bhotia, Buksa, Jaunsari, Raji and Tharus as STs in the state.4 Hence, for the rst time, these STs were counted in the 1971 Census. Initially, the recognition for ve STs (1950) came with area restriction, i e, they were recognised as STs only if they were living in certain specied areas5 of UP; those living in non-specied areas were not recognised as STs. Following protests, Parliament passed the Constitution Removal of Area Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1967 recognising them as STs throughout UP. In the 1971 Census when STs in the state were rst counted, they were counted throughout the state and numbered 1.99 lakh which went up to 2.87 lakh in the 1991 Census (this included the STs who went to Uttarakhand in 2000). However, after the carving out of Uttarakhand from UP, the 2001 Census showed only 1.07 lakh STs in UP. That was just 0.02% of the total population of UP and in terms of both numbers and percentage of population, could be called very insignicant. But, that was an erroneous picture exhibiting callous indifference to the sensibilities of tribal castes and communities in UP.
Non-Scheduled Tribes

There was no ofcial record in the public domain giving a complete list of the tribes in UP that were not scheduled. In 1950 while scheduling tribes, many important tribal communities, viz, Gond, Dhuria, Kharwar, Kahars, Khairwar, Kols, Mallah, Nayak, Ojha, Pathari, Raj Gond, Saharya, Parahiya, Baiga, Pankha, Panika, Agariya, Patari, Chero, Bhuiya, Bhuinya, Banjara, etc, were simply ignored (Crook 1896). That created a very piquant situation for such tribes as a whole as it left them completely alienated, divided and greatly disturbed their social relations, political empowerment and economic conditions. All
december 21, 2013 vol xlviii no 51
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

those NSTs faced multiple discriminations. One, they were denied identity as tribes but the government did not maintain any census category of NSTs. Two, they were given wrong identities by being forcibly placed mostly in the lower/lowest echelon of Hindu hierarchy, i e, they became either SCs or OBCs. Three, those tribes placed in the SC category, were made untouchables whereas they had not experienced untouchability in their tribal society. Four, tribes placed in the OBC category lost all governmental patronage that might have accrued to them as STs; they continued to suffer deprivation until the Mandal Commission implementation in 1993. The number of such NSTs is phenomenal and their placement in the SC or OBC categories has wrongly inated the population share of these two caste groups.6 Unfortunately, tribal communities are unorganised and unable to agitate in favour of their demands. Some among them, who had clout, consciousness and numbers in some areas, had been agitating for recognition as STs. The case of tribals in Poorvanchal (eastern districts of UP) is an example where repeated demands were made to accord ST status to excluded tribal groups. After 52 years of passive and active agitation, Parliament nally recognised some of them as STs in 13 eastern districts of UP in 2002-03 (Table 2).
Table 2: Tribes Recognised as STs in Some Districts of UP by Parliament in 2002
S No Tribal Castes/Sub-Castes Residential Restriction (Districts)

(b) it divided one single tribal caste/sub-caste territory-wise by recognising it as ST in one or more districts of Poorvanchal (13 districts of east UP) and not in 58 districts where they remained in the SC category notwithstanding roti-beti relations amongst them throughout the state; (c) the new law did not include off-shoots of the Gonds which is generic stock from which many tribal castes and sub-castes have branched out. Only ve sub-castes of the Gonds Dhuria, Nayak, Ojha, Pathari, Raj Gond were mentioned in the Gond tribal category whereas the most numerous of them Kahars and Mallahs were excluded; and (d) identity to a few tribes in UP in 2002-03 came with heavy costs those transferred to the ST category lost reservation benets; as SCs they were getting 21% reservation, but in their new ST category, they lost that entitlement because ST reservation is just 1% in government jobs in UP.7 Moreover, as STs, their entitlement to seek election from reserved constituencies also ended (there are no seats reserved for STs in UP; neither in the state assembly nor in the Lok Sabha constituencies).
Linking Tribes to Scheduled Areas

1 Gond, Dhuria, Nayak, Ojha, Pathari, Raj Gond 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kharwar, Khairwar Saharya Parahiya Baiga Pankha, Panika Agariya Patari Chero Bhuiya, Bhuinya

Maharajganj, Siddharth Nagar, Basti, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Mau, Azamgarh, Jaunpur, Ballia, Ghazipur, Varanasi, Mirzapur and Sonbhadra Deoria, Ballia, Ghazipur, Varanasi and Sonbhadra Lalitpur Sonbhadra Sonbhadra Sonbhadra and Mirzapur Sonbhadra Sonbhadra Sonbhadra and Varanasi Sonbhadra

Source: The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002.

Parliament passed the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002 which came into force on 7 January 2003. In UP, the amended law excluded 17 castes and sub-castes from list of SCs specied in the Constitution (STs) Order, 1950 residing in specied districts of Uttar Pradesh and transferred them to the list of STs with reference to certain specied districts of Uttar Pradesh by amending the Constitution (STs) (Uttar Pradesh) Order, 1967. Earlier, there were 69 SCs and ve STs in UP. After the above Act was passed, the number of SCs in UP was reduced from 69 to 52 and the number of STs increased from ve to 22. In doing so, however, Parliament again made three mistakes: (a) it recognised only a few tribal castes and subcastes eligible for ST status still leaving many of them unrecognised, (b) in doing so, it put area restrictions on newly recognised STs, and (c) it did not touch tribes listed in the SC or OBC category. Thus (a) the law further divided tribes by recognising some of them as STs while leaving others in the SC or OBC category;
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

The folly of arbitrarily dividing tribal communities into STs and NSTs in independent India can be traced to the British who had to protect the interests of tribal communities living in certain areas. These areas were rich in natural resources and the indigenous people (called animists, hill and forest tribes, primitive tribes, tribe, etc) resented the exploitation of their natural resources by outsiders. By Regulation XIII of 1833, the British declared certain parts of Chotanagpur to be non-regulated areas, which meant that normal rules were not applicable to such areas; for example, outsiders were not allowed to acquire land in those areas. Later, the Scheduled Area Regulation Act (1874) listed districts that were declared as scheduled. The Government of India Act of 1919 empowered the governor-general in council to declare any territory in British India to be a backward tract and to direct that any Act or a part thereof shall not apply or shall apply to such territories with specied exceptions or modications. This provision was continued in the Government of India Act of 1935 (Sections 91-92). The British made special provisions for protecting tribal areas but no attempts were made to extend the same protection to members of specied tribes. Thus, laws were linked to areas, not to tribes. The Act of 1935, for the rst time, provided political representation to backward tribes in provincial legislatures. The government notied a list of backward tribes in 1936 for all provinces except Punjab and Bengal (The Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assemblies) Order, 1936), but that was only for political representation, not affecting protective provisions for deregulated or partially deregulated areas. Unfortunately, the Constitution amalgamated the socalled deregulated tribal areas with tribal communities living thereon, and some of the tribes living only on the deregulated areas were scheduled and accorded ST status (Kulkarni 1991). Other tribes, equally or more backward, but living in non-deregulated areas were left out and were neither scheduled nor granted ST status.
55

december 21, 2013

vol xlviii no 51

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Incorrect Count The UP government notied ve STs in 1967 and were rst counted in the 1971 Census. But the census data was disappointing and it appeared as if a lazy and half-hearted attempt had been made to reach the STs. The inaccessibility and remoteness of the STs were not so pronounced in 1971 that the census enumerators could not reach them. Even in subsequent census enumerations in 1981, 1991 and 2001, census data does not seem to reect their real demographic prole. A district-wise census count of the STs (2001) in UP may conrm this (Table 3). The gures show deciency in count of constitutionally recognised STs in several districts, notably Mirzapur and Sonbhadra districts in Vindhyachal division and several Bundelkhand districts in Chitrakoot division along with some eastern districts (Maharajganj, Siddharth Nagar, Deoria, Basti, Gorakhpur, Mau, Azamgarh, Jaunpur, Ballia and Varanasi, etc). These districts are well known for higher ST population8 and the 2011 Census proves that. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002 was not only theoretically wrong, but
Table 3: Number of STs District-wise in Uttar Pradesh (as per Census 2001)
Division S No District ST Number Division S No District ST Number

also of questionable constitutional validity. The law gave 17 tribal castes and sub-castes ST status only in 14 districts, not in the remaining 57 districts. That was in spite of Constitution Removal of Area Restrictions (Amendment) Act of 1967 under which Parliament ruled that STs residing in any district would be treated as STs in the entire state. The 2002 Act was against the spirit of Removal of Area Restriction Act 1967. It was incomprehensible as to why newly recognised STs were restricted to only 13 districts of Poorvanchal and Lalitpur district of Bundelkhand. Why were they not given statewide recognition? The provision also appears to be not only against Article 16(2) of the Constitution that bars discrimination in public employment on grounds of place of birth or residence, but also against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya vs State of Kerala 1994 SSC(1) that ruled that any scheduled caste/(schedule tribes), listed in the presidential order 1950, living in any area of state is entitled to receive benets of reservation in any public educational institution or employment as per law.
Gonds, Kahars and Mallahs

Agra

1 Mathura 2 Agra 3 Firozabad 4 Mainpuri

230 870 190 710 470 160 4270 90 110 380 1790 100 490 470 190 2560 900 530 420 140 1070 00 910 20 380 2050 50 70 37950 370 200 960 2870 1800

Meerut

Allahabad

5 Fatehpur 6 Pratapgarh 7 Allahabad 8 Kausambi

Bareilly

9 Budaun 10 Bareilly 11 Pilibhit 12 Shahjahanpur

Faizabad

13 Barabanki 14 Sultanpur 15 Faizabad

16 Ambedkar Nagar 140 Gorakhpur 17 Maharajganj 18 Gorakhpur 19 Deoria 20 Kushinagar Jhansi 21 Jalaun 22 Jhansi 23 Lalitpur Kanpur 24 Farrukhabad 25 Etawah 26 Kanpur dehat 27 Kanpur nagar 28 Kannauj 29 Auraiya Lucknow 30 Lakhimpur 31 Sitapur 32 Hardoi 33 Unnao 34 Lucknow 35 Raibareily

36 37 38 39 40 Moradabad 41 42 43 44 Varanasi 45 46 47 48 Azamgarh 49 50 51 Basti 52 53 54 Vindhyachal 55 56 57 Saharanpur 58 59 Chitrakoot 60 61 62 63 Devipatan 64 65 66 67 Aligarh 68 69 70 71

Meerut 240 Ghaziabad 210 Bulandshahar 210 GB Nagar 380 Baghpat 50 Bijnor 2430 Moradabad 300 Rampur 360 JP Nagar 200 Jaunpur 380 Ghazipur 280 Benaras 770 Chandauli 250 Mau 430 Azamgarh 700 Ballia 270 Siddharth Nagar 230 St Kabir Nagar 240 Basti 310 Mirzapur 1300 Sonbhadra 490 Bhadoi 220 Saharanpur 500 Muzaffarnagar 90 Hamirpur 170 Banda 30 Mahoba 60 Chitrakoot 20 Bahraich 8610 Gonda 180 Shrawasti 4760 Balarampur 19350 Aligarh 230 Etah 20 Mahamaya Nagar 70 Kanshiram Nagar 10

Source: Compiled by the author from the Sankhyakiya Patrika , Government of Uttar Pradesh.

Gond is the main tribe of Dravidian family and most important non-Aryan or forest tribe in India, and in the central provinces (now Madhya Pradesh) they were also rulers in a large part known as gondwana (Russell and Lal 1916). Gonds are found in large numbers in UP. They speak Gondi, Bhojpuri, Bundelkhandi, Hindi and several other dialects and languages, wear colourful clothes and worship janani, the mother creator. Many are cultivators, raise crops and livestocks, and have also taken to government and private jobs. But in post-Independent India they were not only denied tribal recognition, but put in the SC category and that too in just a couple of districts around the Kaimur Range in Sonbhadra and Mirzapur. In the rest of UP, they were put in the general category in 1950. It was only after 26 years of long struggle that Parliament accepted the Gonds along with Koris, as SCs throughout UP in 1976. But they were still 26 years further away from being recognised as STs; Gonds and its ve sub-castes were recognised as STs in 13 districts of eastern UP in 2002-03. Thus, during the past 62 years, they struggled to acquire their true identity from general category through SC to ST category though only in a few districts of eastern UP. Most Gonds and their sub-castes had access to herems of erstwhile kings and households of upper caste Hindus. While the Koris had suffered untouchability earlier and felt comfortable in the SC category, the Gonds did not. Gonds are mainly located in two places; the hills of the Vindhya ranges and the plains of the Ganga. Those inhabiting hilly regions and involved in wood cutting are treated as STs, but the ones in the plains who are shers by occupation are not classied as STs in UP (though in many states, shermen, viz, Manjhis, Manjhwars, Kewat, Nishads, Mallahs are recognised as STs). Gonds were put in the ST category all over the country except in UP and Assam in 1950. The Kahar, known also as Mahar, Dhemar, Behera, Bhoi and Machhmar (in Bundelkhand), are sub-castes of
december 21, 2013 vol xlviii no 51
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

56

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Gonds. Gond is the main tribe of which Kahar is only an occupational derivative. Kahars are palanquin (doli)-bearers and watermen. Though originally from the low caste and of non-Aryan blood they came to occupy high positions and come to work as indoor servants in Hindu households. Gonds generally consider the Kahar or Bhoi as a designation of honour (Russell and Lal 1916, Vol 3, pp 291-96). Gonds and Kahars have roti-beti relations. Many committees recommended that the Kahars be transferred from OBCs to STs. The Lukar Committee (1965) recommended their inclusion in the ST category on the basis of current parameters for identifying STs in India, viz, primitiveness, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with community at large, and backwardness. Even the Balkrishna Renuke Commission for Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribes (2008) recommended their inclusion in the ST category. Kahars trace their origin from Dhurias and hence, are actually Dhuria Kahars. The Dhurias are Gonds as was recognised by Parliament by law in 2002 by treating Dhurias as a sub-caste of the Gond. Some scholars opine that Dhurias are a branch of Kahars and have migrated to other states like Chhattisgarh from the erstwhile United Provinces, the present state of UP (Russell and Lal 1916, Vol 2: 527). Mythology has it that lord Shiva created the Kahars from dhur (dust) to carry the doli, palki or palanquin to provide transport to goddess Parvati when she looked wearied while returning from the house of Himachal, her father (Crooke 1896, Vol 3: 93). So, Kahars (by occupation) are actually Dhuria (by caste name), and, hence, deserve to be recognised as STs all over UP.
Table 4: Population of Gonds, Kahars and Mallahs in UP (1891 Census)
Tribes Population in UP Districts in 1891 Census Remarks

Gonds Kahars Mallahs Total

1,24,504 11,89,469 3,69,008 16,82,981

Figures for Gonds are taken from Crooke* Vol II, p 438, for Kahars from Vol III, pp 102-04, and for Mallahs from Vol II, pp 468-71. The figures exclude those districts of UP that now form parts of Uttarakhand

*Source: Crooke (1896).

But Kahars were wrongly put in the OBC category. When they go to the lekhpal or tehsildar for a certicate, they are turned away on the pretext that they are just Kahars and not Dhuria Kahars. However, when a person (even one with the surname Kashyap, Srivastam, Singh, etc) swears an afdavit that he or she is a Chamar, he/she is issued a SC certicate without any fuss about the surname. Mallahs are shing and boating tribes and were mainly involved in transporting goods through waterways during the British reign. The term Mallah is purely occupational and they represent themselves as descended from the Nishada, a mountain tribe of the Vindhya ranges (Crooke 1896, Vol 3: 460-61). They were wrongly put in the most-backward category and wrongly classied as nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes. Actually they were great patriots, did not succumb to British imperialist pressures, sided with native kings and torpedoed British boats carrying goods and soldiers. The Satti Chaura incident in Kanpur during the rst war of Independence (1858) was a testimony to this wherein many British boats were torpedoed killing hundreds of British soldiers and civilians (English 1994). Mallahs were mainly instrumental in that attack. That was the reason why the British put them in the (now denotied tribe) criminal tribes category. It is strange that these people who in the name of Nishads, Kewats, Manjhis, etc, are according to mythic legends known to have helped lord Rama while crossing river Ganga during his vanvas (banishment) (Crooke 1896, Vol 3: 461), played heroic roles during the freedom struggle, and are undisputedly tribals, have been denied the tribal identity and ST status. In the 1891 Census, the Gond population in UP was 1,24,504; Kahars numbered 11,89,469 (after excluding those districts that now form part of Uttarakhand) and Mallahs were 3,69,008 (Table 4). Thus, the total population of Gonds, Kahars and Mallahs in the 1891 Census was 16,82,981. In the Census ReturnsGonds are usually classed with the shing tribes of Kahar and Mallah and [are] domestic servant, stone cutter and grain-parcher (Crooke 1896, Vol II: 430). When we
Projected Population Projected Population of the Tribe in UP in of Tribes in UP 2001@ 330% Centennial in 2011@ 17.6 % Growth (1901-2001) Decadal Growth (2001-11) Projected ST Population in UP in 2011 Remarks (Census 2011 Data Based)

Table 5: Grand Total of Projected ST Population (UP)

Categories Tribes Population of the Tribe in UP in Census 1891 Population Growth Rate during 1901-2001

First: Five tribes recognised as STs in 1950 by the President Second: 17 tribal castes and sub-castes recognised as STs in 2002

Bhotia, Buksa, Jaunsari, Raji, Tharu Agariya Bhuiya Chero Khairwar

1,07,963 (Actual Census 2001) 330% 4,033 3,607 20,988 9,1611

1,26,964 1,26,964** 4,743 4,242 24,681 1,07,734

938 830 4,881 21,305

In Census 2011, the household data indicates ST population (first and second category STs) in UP to be close to about 26 lakhs.

Third: Need to be recognised as STs

Other 13 STs Gond* Kahar Mallah

NA 1,24,504 11,89,469 3,69,008 Grand total

NA 5,35,367 51,14,716 15,86,003

NA 6,29,591 60,14,906 18,65,139

1,41,400** NA**

85,09,636 87,78,000

26,65,774 Total ST population could be close to 1.13 crores. 1,14,43,774

*Gonds recognised in 2002 as STs only in 13 districts of eastern UP. **This figure is reported to be much higher in 2011 Census. Source: Compiled by the author.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

december 21, 2013

vol xlviii no 51

57

SPECIAL ARTICLE

work out the population growth of the Gonds, Kahars and Mallahs during 1901-2001 at a general population growth rate of 330% (ignoring the higher tribal decadal growth rate at national level) and decadal growth rate of 17.6% during 2001-11, their projected population in 2011 amounts to 85 lakhs (Table 5, p 57). The projected population of all tribals notied as STs in the Constitution in 1950, those transferred to ST category in 2002-03 by Parliament, and Gonds, Kahars and Mallahs (all over UP) during 1891-2011 on the basis of rough estimates of centennial growth rate, and decadal growth rate amounts to about 88 lakhs (87,78,000). As the 2011 Census data indicates the ST population (category rst and second in Table 5) in UP to be approximately 26 lakhs, by clubbing that gure with the projected population of the Gonds, Kahars and Mallahs, the grand total of ST population in UP could be as high as about 1.14 crore in 2011 (Table 5).
Forgotten Tribes There were several tribes listed in the 1891 Census in various districts of UP who were forgotten by the government while identifying tribals for the ST category. Some of them have been listed here and their populations in the 1891 Census and projected population in 2001 and 2011 have been worked out. That presently totals to approximately 41 lakhs (41,40,803) (Table 6).
Table 6: Projected Population of Forgotten Tribes Listed in 1891 Census
Tribes in Population Uttar Pradesh Listed in UP in 1891 Census in Census 1891 Population Growth Rate during 1901-2001 Projected Population of the Tribe in UP in 2001@ 330% Centennial Growth (1901-2001) Projected Population of Tribes in UP in 2011@ 17.6% Decadal Growth (2001-11)

That number may exceed this gure if a detailed count is taken today. Even if the projected population of the limited tribes listed in Table 6 is clubbed with the 1.14 crore ST population projected in Table 5, the grand total would be 1.55 crores (1,55,84,577). That would raise the ST population in UP to 8.2%. That is very close to the ST population of 8.6% of the total at national level in the 2011 Census.
Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes

The denotied and nomadic tribes (DNTs) were not included by the government in the list of STs. The denotied tribes were listed as criminal tribes under the Criminal Tribes Act 1867, and as habitual offenders under the Habitual Offenders Act 1959. That list was not in the public domain until 2005; such a list became known only when the National Commission for Denotied, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (NCDnSNT), set up by the Government of India in March 2005 to study various developmental aspects of these tribes, requested it from various state governments (The Gazzette of India Extraordinary, 16 March 2005). Table 7 lists various denotied tribes and nomadic tribes that are recognised as such in UP. These DNTs need placement only in the ST category, but the government has placed them in the SC or OBC categories. The ST population in UP would increase considerably if they too are accorded ST status. It is however surprising that the NCDNSNT did not recommend their inclusion in the ST category though it was in favour of their getting reservation at par with the SC/ST/OBCs depending on the category in which they are placed.9
Table 7: Denotified and Nomadic Tribes in Uttar Pradesh
Denotified communities Banjara, Bhar, Kahar, Gandeela, Ghosi (Hindu), Kewat, Mallah, Lodh, Mewati, Audhiya, Tanga, Bhat, Khurpalta, Mugia, Madari, Singiwal, Aughar, Baid, Bhat, Chamarmangta, Jogi, Joga, Kingiria, Mahawat, Bhatri, Sapera, Karmanga (Hindu Mahawat), Beldar, Kanmailia, Gosain, Godanhar, Lona, Chamar, Bargi, Sikligar, Kankali, Brijbasi, Kalandar Fakir Banjara, Bhar, Dalere, Kahar, Gandeela, Ghosi, Kewat, Mallah, Lodh, Mewati, Audhiya,Tanga, Bhat, Khurpalta, Mugia(Mung), Madari, Singiwal, Aughar, Baid, Bhat, Chamarmangta, Jogi, Joga, Kingiria, Mahawat and Lungipathan, Bhatri, Sapera, Karmanga (Hindu Mahawat), Beldar, Kanmailia, Gosain, Godanhar, Lona, Chamar, Bargi, Sikligar, Kankali, Brijbasi, Kalandar Fakir

Agariya Aheriya Ahiwasi Bahelia Baiswar Balahars Bawaria Bhils Binds Biyars Dhangar Goli Haburas Kanjar Kol Korwa Kotwar Lunia/Nunia Mahra Majhwar Manjhi Mushar Nut Sansiya Soiri Grand Total

938 19,768 9,502 33,754 1,898 2,359 2,729 190 76,986 1,8821 783 21 2,596 17,865 68,566 33 97 4,12,817 699 16,263 6,122 40,662 63,282 4,290 17,822 8,18,863 330%

4,033 85,002 40,858 1,45,142 8,161 10,143 11,734 817 3,31,039 80,930 3,367 90 11,162 76,819 2,94,833 141 417 1,77,5113 3,005 69,930 26,324 1,74,846 2,72,112 18,447 76,634 35,21,099

4,743 99,962 48,049 1,70,687 9,597 11,928 13,799 961 3,89,301 95,174 3,958 106 13,126 90,339 3,46,723 165 490 20,87,532 3,533 82,237 30,957 2,05,618 3,20,003 21,694 9,0121 41,40,803

Nomadic tribes

Source: National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes, Government of India, New Delhi.

Source: Compiled by the author from W Crooke (1896).

In spite of the census count of the STs, getting a ST certicate is a serious problem in UP. There are several government orders10 which direct certicate issuing authorities not to make 1,359 fasli11 and/or pre-1950 revenue documents the only basis for issuing ST certicates to Dhuria Kahars claiming Gond status, but to holistically assess their claims by physical verication from villagers and Gond families. One reason cited by Gond Mahasabha activists regarding the difculty in getting ST certicates is that most of the certicate-issuing ofcials are from the SCs or OBCs, and they refuse to issue certicates notwithstanding government orders. Liberal issuing of certicates may swell the ST ranks and they may start demanding their share of the reservation quota (7.5%) which was gobbled up by the SCs who enjoy 21% reservation (instead of 15%). STs
december 21, 2013 vol xlviii no 51
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

58

SPECIAL ARTICLE

were denied reservation quota on the pretext that there were no STs in UP and their quota of reservation was merged with that of SCs. The Gond Mahasabha activists, and some scholars (Duncan 2005) hold Babasaheb Ambedkar responsible for breaking the depressed class (that included both dalits and tribals) into SC and ST in independent India. By bringing in the hyphenated expression of SC/ST in post-Independence India, and espousing the cause of SCs only, they allege, Ambedkar ensured that interests of tribals were put on the back-burner. The Parliament, through Constitution (89th Amendment) Act, 2003, amended Article 338 and inserted a new Article 338A to bifurcate the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes into two separate and independent constitutional bodies. The rst National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) came into existence in 2004.12 One hopes that the NCST is looking after the interests of tribals in each state and helping them to claim their legal and constitutional benets. One serious repercussion of this could be a schism between the SCs and STs in the days to come because most of the tribals/
Notes
1 Census of India 2011 (http://www.censusindia. gov.in/2011census/hlo/ SC_ST/st/HH 240 5T0000CRCD.pdf). 2 The Cabinet Committee on SCs, STs and Minorities in its meeting held on 15 June 1999 approved modalities for deciding inclusions and exclusion from SCs and STs lists. A proposal to transfer a caste or castes to ST list has to come from the state government, and agreed to by the Registrar General of India. Then, it is sent to the NCST. When all the three agree, the cabinet may propose suitable legislation. 3 Action taken memorandum on the rst report of the NCST for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Report available at the website- http://www. tribal.gov.in/WriteReadData/ CMS/Document s/201303161143432900390File1519.pdf 4 Scheduled Tribes Constitution (STs) (Uttar Pradesh) Order 1967. 5 The specied areas included seven hill districts Dehradun, Nainital, Uttarkashi, Chamoli, Pithoragarh, Almora, Pauri Garhwal (now part of Uttarakhand) and ve districts in plains, viz, Lakhimpur Kheri, Gonda, Gorakhpur, Behraich and Bijnore. Of the ve STs, Raji, Bhotia and Jaunsari were hill tribes and Buksa and Tharus belonged to plains. 6 UP Gazette Extraordinary, 15 September 2001. 7 Ministry of Personnel and Public Grievance, Scope of Reservation, Chapter 2, pp 8-9. http://www.persmin.nic.in/ DOPT/Brochure_ Reservation_SCSTBackward/Chapter-02.pdf 8 As per the rough estimates given by activists of the Gond Mahasabha in UP, in just one district Sultanpur (in Amethi parliamentary constituency of Rahul Gandhi, Congress MP and general secretary), the population of Gonds could be more than one lakh, whereas the Census 2001 total count of STs in UP was shown to be about one lakh (Gonds are not recognised as STs in Sultanpur district). The same is true of other districts too. 9 The Indian Express, 21 August 2008 (http://www. indianexpress. com/news/panel-favours-reser vation-for-nomadic-tribes/351413/). 10 The UP government order No 3469/26-3-2010 dated 26 October 2010 lists detailed instructions
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

STs feel that the SCs have greatly harmed their interests and eaten up their reservation share. The STs placed in SC or OBC categories are so marginalised that they never challenged the dominant sub-castes there. The political fallout of this could be disadvantageous to both caste parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party representing dalits and backwards because most tribes aspiring for ST status have suffered domination and injustice at the hands of SCs or OBC depending on where they are placed. The same is true of the DNTs who are mostly in the OBC category. That makes these tribal castes favourably inclined towards the national parties mainly the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party hoping that these parties facilitate their inclusion in the ST list through parliamentary law. More and more castes from the SC and OBC categories may be transferred to the ST category thus drastically changing the demographic prole of Uttar Pradesh.13 That would require future census enumerations to be more careful in counting the STs, and may also force the next Delimitation Commission to reserve seats for STs in the Lok Sabha and the UP assembly.
English, Barbara (1994): The Kanpur Massacres in India in the Revolt of 1857, Past and Present, No 142, February, pp 169-78. Kulkarni, Sharad (1991): Distortion of Census Data on Scheduled Tribes, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XXVI, No 5, 2 February, pp 205-08. (1994): Identifying Scheduled Tribes: The Gowari Tragedy, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 29, No 49, 3 December, pp 3073-74. Mukherjee, Sandeep (2008): Reservation in Government Services: Reservation Policy (Delhi: Variety Books Publishers Distributors). Russell, R V and Hira Lal (1916): The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, Vols I-IV, published under the orders of the Central Province Administration (London: MacMillan & Co Ltd). Sau, Ranjit (2006): Non-Scheduled Tribes in Letters to the Editor: Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLI, No 33, 19 August, p 3550. Sen, Chandra, B K Roy Burman and N G Nag (1974): Buksa: A Scheduled Tribe in Uttar Pradesh (New Delhi: Ofce of the Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs). Shankar, Kripa (1999): Uttar Pradesh: Kols of Korawal From Sufciency to Impoverishment, Economic & Political Weekly, 3 April, pp 798-801. Singh, Shubranshu Shekhar (2008): Uttar Pradesh Mein Naxali Gatividhiyan (Naxal Activities in Uttar Pradesh), UP Journal of Social Science Research, Winter 2007/Summer 2008, Vol 1, No 1, pp 43-48. Srivastava, Vinay Kumar (2008): Concept of Tribe in the Draft National Tribal Policy, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 43, No 50, 13 December, pp 29-35. Sumedha, Naswa (2001): Tribes of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal: Ethnography and Bibliography of Scheduled Tribes (New Delhi: Mittal Publications). Verma, A K (2013): Incorrect ST Data, Letters, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XL, No 20, 18 May, p 4. Zvelebil, Kamil V (1981): Problems of Identication and Classication of Some Nilagiri Tribes, Anthropos, Bd 76, H 3/4, pp 467-528, Published by Anthropos Institute, Germany.

for issuing ST certicates to Gonds. Another government order no 2012/26-3-2011 dated 24 August 2011 government further claried that certicates should not be denied only on document basis, viz, 1,359 fasli or pre-1950 revenue records; but ground reality may be ascertained by physical verication from people in villages and nearby Gond families. 11 1,359 fasli referes to a period in UP before chakbandi (consolidation of land) under UP Consolidation of Land Holding Act 1953. 12 The NCST came into existence on 19 February 2004. The rst NCST included Kunwar Singh (chairperson), Gajendra Singh Rajukheri (vicechairperson) and Ven Lama Lobzang, Prema Bai Mandavi, Buduru Srinivasulu as members. Chairperson, VC and members have a tenure of three years each. chairperson has the status of union cabinet minister, while VC has the status of minister of state and members have the status of secretary to the Government of India. The second commission comprised Urmila Singh (chairperson) and Tsering Samphel as member. The third commission comprised Rameshwar Uraon (chairperson), Maurice Kujar (vice chairperson) and Oris Syiem Myriaw, K Kamala Kumari and Bheru Lal Meena as members. 13 It is unfortunate that the present government of Akhilesh Yadav recommend that 17 castes and sub-castes in OBC category be transferred to SC category The recommended castes are Rajbhar, Nishad, Mallah, Kashyap, Kumhar, Dheemar, Bind, Prajapati, Dheevar, Bhar, Kewat, Batham, Kahar, Machhua, Turha, Manjhi and Gaur (The Hindu, 17 February 2013). On 3 May 2013, only Kols were recommended to be transferred to ST category.

References
Crooke, William (1896): The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Vols I-IV (India: Ofce of the Superintend of Government Printing). Duncan, Ian (2005): Ambedkar, Ambedkerites and Adivasis, paper presented at International Conference on Reinterpreting Adivasi Movements in South Asia, University of Sussex, UK, March.
vol xlviii no 51

december 21, 2013

59