The Neglected Tribes of Jharkhand

By
Pradip Kumar Singh 1

Jharkhand state is well known for two things – its abundant mineral wealth and its variegated
tribal population. Having only recently acquired its own separate identity, this state is a
heaven for all types of people – entrepreneurs, academicians, politicians, social scientists,
botanists, zoologists, geologists, geographers, social workers, miners, businessmen,
archaeologists – the list is endless. It is also known as an example of how a simple, illiterate,
poor, unorganized, voiceless people can be, and mercilessly have been, exploited by
unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats wielding unbridled power that only a democracy can
bestow.
Jharkhand is a land of hills and forests, rivers and plains, ravines and passes, wild animals and
domesticated cattle. Its landmass – the famed Gondwana land – is one of the oldest on the
earth. Its flora and fauna are a delight to the biologists, its people even more so to the
anthropologists and other social scientists.
Thirty types of tribes inhabit Jharkhand – ranging from the hunter-gatherer Birhor through the
swiddeners Maler to the settled agriculturist Munda and Oraon. Population-wise, from less
than a thousand Banjara to more than two million Santhal occupy the forests and plains of
Jharkhand. But, as they say, not all people are born equal; certainly some are born more equal
than the others. As we shall see same is true of the tribes in Jharkhand as well.
The thirty tribes of Jharkhand were categorised by Vidyarthi (1958) in the following manner:-

1. Hunter-gatherers – Birhor, Korwa, Parhaiya etc.

2. Shifting Cultivators – Sauria Paharia, Mal Paharia, Birjia, Asur etc.
3. Simple Artisans – Mahli, Chik Baraik, Lohra, Karmali etc.
4. Settled Agriculturists – Santhal, Munda, Oraon, Ho, Kharia, Kharwar, etc.

With the passage of time, and with growing awareness of the developmental issue, the scene
has changed somewhat. The special provisions for scheduled tribes, including reservation in
jobs and representation in assemblies and parliament, were put into effect. A number of
development schemes and programmes were conceived and implemented in various aspects
of their life. These have altered the social structure of tribal Jharkhand to some extent. In 1975
the concept of PTG (Primitive Tribal Groups) emerged in which the tribes pursuing hunting-
gathering, and swiddening (shifting cultivation) were included, and special developmental
programmes for them were initiated. In Jharkhand nine tribes have been classified as PTG–
Asur, Birhor, Savar, Hill Kharia, Korwa, Birjia, Sauria Paharia, Mal Paharia, and Parhaiya.
Since Hill Kharia in this group is a section of Kharia which is a part of settled agriculturist
group, some confusion is being created as to the number of PTG in Jharkhand. Here we shall
treat it also in the PTG, although the total number of tribes will remain thirty.
In this paper I propose a new four-fold classification of Jharkhand tribes taking into account
the changing scene, and politico-administrative perspective in conceiving and implementing

1
Pradip Kumar Singh is Reader in Anthropology, Ranchi College, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.
various tribal development schemes and programmes. This classification is a variation of the
earlier one proposed by Vidyarthi.
1) Settled Agriculturists
2) Simple Artisans
3) Primitive Tribal Group
4) Neglected Tribes

We shall see a thumbnail sketch of each group.

The Settled Agriculturists

The settled agriculturists are the most populous and constitute nearly 87 percent of the total
tribal population. They are the dominant tribes of Jharkhand and hold economic and political
power. Their numerical preponderance ensures their political superiority, and bigger land
holding their economic strength. They allow other minor tribal groups to work in their fields
and thus hold considerable influence over others. They are the most developed group and hog
most of the benefits earmarked for the tribals, including reservation in jobs and elections.
Being the most educated, they are most aware of the opportunities available and are able to
take maximum advantage. They have been studied the most by the scholars, administrators,
academicians, social scientists etc. since the British times and hundreds of books and articles
have been published on them. The settled agriculturists are in a position to influence the
Government’s tribal policy. Their social, political, religious, and economic lives, as well as
their art and crafts, folk tradition, their problems, their dance, drama, music etc. are best
known.
Settled Agriculturists of Jharkhand

Population (1991) Literacy (1981)

Name of Tribe Percent of Total Percent of Total
Total Population Percent
Tribal Population Tribal Literacy
Bhumij 155961 2.35% 16.45 2.26
Gond 104377 1.57% 20.00 1.96
Ho 631548 9.54% 17.71 9.62
Kharia 140362 2.12% 24.86 3.57
Kharwar 242558 3.66% 17.22 3.89
Munda 920147 13.9% 22.16 18.98
Oraon 1214708 18.35% 23.28 24.71
Santhal 2349492 35.5% 12.55 26.19
Total 57,59,153 86.99% 91.18
Average per tribe 7,19,894 10.87%

The average population per tribe in this group is 7,19,894 and average percentage of
population per tribe is 10.87. These major settled agriculturists tribes have about 91 percent of
total tribal literates in the state. Even Santhal who have the lowest literacy rate in the major
tribal group have the highest number of literates because of their maximum population. They
are able to wrest the leadership. The Munda, Santhal and Oraon in this group are well known
all over the world.

The Simple Artisans

The simple artisan tribes, all the four of them, are scattered throughout Jharkhand. They live
in villages dominated by one or more of the settled agriculturists. None of the artisan tribes
have an exclusive village of their own. They are the “service tribes” of Jharkhand and their
social and economic position is akin to the Other Backward Castes of the non-tribal areas of
Jharkhand and Bihar. They provide the agriculturists their basic material needs like utensils,
implements, clothes, tools, and weapons. In any given village only a few families of these
artisan tribes reside, and eke out their livelihood through Jajmani relationship with others.
They also have been studied in detail.
Artisan Tribes of Jharkhand

Population (1991) Literacy (1981)

Name of Tribe Percent of
Percent of Total
Total Population Percent total tribal
Tribal Population
literacy
Chik Baraik 46563 0.70% 20.17 0.82
Karmali 52576 0.76% 13.30 0.52
Lohra 180806 2.73% 12.71 2.18
Mahli I07641 1.62% 12.74 1.18
Total 2,79,945 5.81% 4.7
Average per tribe 69,986.25 1.45%

The artisan tribes constitute 5.81 percent of the total tribal population and have 4.7 percent of
total literates. The average population of artisan tribes is 69,986 and average percent
population is 1.45 percent of total tribal population.

The Primitive Tribal Group

The PTG, on the other hand, are the administratively most cared-for tribes. They comprise of
the hunter-gatherer and shifting cultivator groups. They are the objects of study by the
academicians, targets of development programmes by the development policy planners,
people of special treatment by the administrators. This group is fully in the limelight, though
constituting only a fraction of the total tribal population of Jharkhand. Any number of
developmental programmes is running for their benefit. Academicians, social scientists, and N
G Os find a study of this group highly rewarding and lucrative.
The Primitive Tribal Groups in Jharkhand

Name of Tribe Population (1991 Literacy (1981)

 Percent of Percent of
Literacy
Total Population Total Tribal total tribal
Percent
Population literacy
Asur 9623 0.14% 10.37% 0.08
Binjhia 13090 0.19% 14.52% 0.15
Birhor 8159 0.12% 5.74% 0.03
Birjia 5191 0.07% 10.50% 0.04
Korwa 23748 0.35% 6.14% 0.14
Mal Paharia 86790 1.31% 7.38% 0.61
Parhaiya 30421 0.45% 15.30% 0.37
Sauria Paharia 48761 0.73% 6.87% 0.28
Savar 4264 0.06% 9.55% 0.03
Total 2,30,047 3.42% 86.37% 1.73
Average per tribe 25,561 0.38%

These primitive tribal groups in Jharkhand constitute 3.42 percent of total tribal population in
the state. This works out to about 25,561 persons per tribe or 0.38 percent of total tribal
population per tribe. They have only 1.73 percent of total tribal literates in the state. These
tribes are genuinely “primitive”, dependent as they are on hunting, food collecting, fishing,
shifting cultivation, collection of minor forest produce etc. For ages they have been living in,
rather living on, the forests. With the introduction of various forest protection laws their
existence has become very precarious as these laws have hit them hard. Various studies show
that, especially in the Reserved Forest areas and sanctuaries such as Betala in Palamau, and
National Park in Hazaribagh, their life is cheaper than that of the animals. Dwindling forests
have made their traditional occupation totally unproductive. They are unable to adjust to the
newer occupations because their culture still is a product of the older traditions; and to the
various development and welfare programmes instituted by the govt., because their ethos
cannot accept these. They are truly a wretched lot, and it is apparent to all concerned.

The Neglected Tribes

The rest of the tribes, nine of them, are what I propose to call the Neglected Tribes of
Jharkhand. These tribes are Baiga, Banjara, Bathudi, Bedia, Chero, Gorait, Khond, Kisan,
and Kora.
The Neglected Tribes of Jharkhand

Population (1991) Literacy (1981)

Percent of
Name of Tribe Percent of Total
Total Total
Tribal Percent
Population Tribal
Population
literacy
Baiga 3930 0.05% 4.22 0.02
 Banjara 847 Neg. 12.38 0.01
Bathudi 2706 0.04% 16.93 0.02
Bedia 72113 1.08% 10.82 0.66
Chero 67447 1.01% 17.30 0.92
Gorait 5926 0.08% 16.61 0.09
Khond 5519 0.08% 15.99 0.03
Kisan 30766 0.46% 13.41 0.32
Kora 39903 0.60% 9.28 0.32
Total 2,29,157 3.35% 2.39
Average per tribe 25,461.89 0.37%

They are numerically insignificant, economically weak, politically ineffective, and

educationally scrawny. They have neither sufficient land nor assured means of livelihood.
These tribes depend upon their more affluent brethren in the settled tribal groups for jobs in
the fields of the latter as agriculture labourers and wage earners. They supplement their
meagre income by collecting the Minor Forest Produce and working as contract labourers,
rickshaw pullers, coolies, etc. These tribes have been totally neglected by academicians,
administrators, social scientists, politicians, development scheme planners etc. Hardly a few
articles are available on them. One cannot find a single full-length monograph on these tribes.
The average population of Neglected Tribes of Jharkhand is 25,461 and average percent
population is 0.37 percent. They constitute 3.45 percent of total tribal population, slightly less
than the P T G. Their share of literates is only 2.39 percent of total tribal literates in the state,
marginally higher than the P T G. Though not pursuing hunting and shifting cultivation, their
method of farming is quite primitive, and their economic security is equally precarious. The
following table summarises the different groups.

PERCENT OF PERCENT OF
TRIBAL NUMBER TOTAL
TOTAL TRIBAL TOTAL TRIBAL
GROUP OF TRIBES POPULATION
POPULATION LITERACY

Settled
8 5759153 87.19 91.18
Agriculturists
Simple
4 279945 5.81 4.70
Artisans
Primitive
9 230047 3.55 1.73
Tribal Group
Neglected
9 229157 3.45 2.39
Tribes

The above table makes it abundantly clear that there is little difference between the P T G and
the Neglected Tribal groups, yet the latter have no special programmes of development
earmarked for them. No welfare projects run for them. Since they are neither as “exotic” as
the Hunter-gatherers, nor as numerous as other major tribes, there is none to hear their
grievances. They are neither able to attract the monograph authors, nor able to influence the
political leaders. Moreover, there is little, if any, chance of their ever getting the benefit of
reservation in assembly and parliament elections, as no party will select a candidate belonging
to a numerically insignificant group, electoral politics being what it is in India today. Their
plight remains unseen and unheard. Theirs is the classic case of “silent babies not getting the
milk”. Yet they are as much a part of tribal scene in Jharkhand as any other tribe.

Academic Neglect
It is ironic, and perhaps symptomatic of the plight of the neglected tribes, that no full-scale
monograph has ever been attempted on any of these neglected tribes. It is also regrettable and
a matter of great concern that the only “serious” account of these tribes is more than one
century old – the “Tribes and Castes of Bengal” by Risley (1891). This book, too, is based on
census and does not provide a detailed description of the tribes and castes, only a sketchy
account. We shall take the example of Bedia, on whom a major research project was recently
completed by the author. Only thirteen publications have some reference to Bedia. starting
from 1872, 130 years ago. Ten of these are Census publications, or are based on census
reports. Again, seven were published before independence. Two were published by British
administrators 130 and 125 years ago, both referring to Bedia tribe among other communities.
Two of the publications are in the form of directories, one on the tribes of erstwhile Bihar 41
years ago, The Land and People of Tribal Bihar (1961) by N. Prasad, and the other, The
Scheduled Tribes, by K.S. Singh (1994). The latter covers the Scheduled Tribes of entire
country and is a part of People of India Project. Both of these describe various tribes in the
respective areas in a few pages and the descriptions are quite sketchy. These are so general in
scope as to be entirely useless for any purpose at all. Their ethnographic data is scanty and
superficial.
Only two of the total publications, a small article by William Ekka, of Anthropological
Survey of India, and a small booklet by C. K Shukla are devoted exclusively to Bedia. Ekka’s
nine page article is an outline sketch of Bedia tribe. Shukla, a Professor of Sanskrit (!), wrote
the booklet in 1997 as part of Monograph Series conducted by Tribal Welfare and Research
Institute, Ranchi, and covers, albeit sketchily, almost every aspect of the Bedia tribe. Both
these publications are in Hindi.
Thus eleven out of thirteen publications refer to Bedia only because it is a scheduled tribe and
they referred to scheduled tribes in general, not Bedia exclusively. All these references are
from a few paragraphs to a few pages long. What is most galling is that the two publications
after independence, that by Prasad and Singh, have not relied on fresh data that could easily
have been collected, (in fact they were supposed to be collected), but both quote profusely the
information given by Risley 110 years ago! This shows the way anthropological researches
are being conducted by bodies set up exclusively for these researches.

Conclusion
It is obvious that Scheduled tribe is not a monolithic group. Everywhere in the country the
tribes show a great variation in economic, social, political, educational, and health spheres
even within the tribal group. They are also subject to differential treatment from the
government and social scientists. As a consequence they have different opportunities of
development which affects their probability of survival in the present circumstances – the
probabilities and circumstances that are not natural but man-made. This is true not only in
Jharkhand, but entire country. In every state one can find many tribes in similar state of
neglect and facing similar predicament.
It is essential, therefore, to reclassify the tribal population in the country in the light of the
conditions prevailing now, and re-orient the developmental programmes and perspective so
that all sections of tribes get full benefit. As things stand today, there is a marked emphasis in
favour of already developed sections, the settled agriculturist tribes, at the cost of least
developed ones.

References

Ekka, William 1982 Bedia Janjati Ki Ek Sankshipta Ruprekha

Hunter, W.W. 1877 A Statistical Account of Bengal: Districts Hazaribagh and
Lohardaga
Prasad, N. 1961 Land and People of Tribal Bihar, Bihar Tribal Welfare
Research Institute, Ranchi
Risley, H.H. 1891 The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, Vol I
Shukla, C. K. 1997 Bihar Ke Bedia, Bihar Tribal Welfare Research Institute,
Ranchi
Singh, K.S. 1994 The Scheduled Tribes, Oxford University Press
Vidyarthi, L. P. 1976 Tribal Culture of India, Concept Publishing Company, New
Delhi