Politics of Indigeneity in Postcolonial India: False Universalizations and Reductive Commodification of Indigeneity

The category of indigenous or tribal in the South Asian region has proved to carry various nuances, having emerged as an administrative identity in the colonial period. It was an identity asserted on tribal people, with the “Depressed class” category. Postcolonial India witnessed a change in perception of administrative identity. The tribal identity is not necessarily asserted by the state in present-day India but rather something one needs to lay evidence of proof for. This shift stands as a pretense to the development of the politics of indigeneity, which is built on false universalizations of the “tribal way of life”. Furthermore, the politics of indigeneity pursues a reductive commodification of indigeneity as an organizing principle while simultaneously distorting the principles of the ideology that is claimed to be pertinent to indigeneity.

The category of tribe is one with various nuances which can be useful in assessing present day issues around tribal or indigenous populations. There has been a historical tactic of assimilation that constructed the administrative identity of ‘tribe’. In this manner, the category of tribe has a legacy of colonial legislature. The label of “Depressed classes” which emerged from 19th century England, was utilized in the colonial period to refer to so-called “backward” classes which included tribal people. There was an evident shift in administrative identity of tribal people in the post-colonial Indian state- from criminalization of tribes to a mission of upliftment utilized by the state. Language is a tool utilized to construct and reinvent narratives. Thus, it is necessary to consider this shift as a pretense to the development of the politics of indigeneity.

I will first investigate this shift by investigating the connotations of labels used for indigenous people in India post 1930s. Adivasi, a modern Sanskrit word, was coined in the 1930s during political movements to forge a differentiated identity for indigenous people in India; This term holds important socio-political connotations of self-identification. Despite the prevalence of this term, the Indian state still does not recognize tribal people or Adivasis to be the indigenous people of India. Instead tribal people are characterized with a trait of backwardness and in need of “social and economic development.” This is seen with lists of tribes labeled under the category of “Scheduled Tribes” (ST), which is built on the pretense of representational upliftment with no active material equality. The colonial legacies of categories such as “Depressed Class” are evident here. This kind of state legibility ,defined by an alleged “backwardness”, is mirrored in even present day notions of indigeneity in political and social movements.

The politics of indigeneity is defined by an imagined idea of indigeneity that is expected to be performed for a largely non-indigenous audience. This is firstly seen in ways Adivasi people have to perform their “tribalness” and lack of alleged modernity to be considered legible for the ST category. But beyond that, the role of indigeneity in political and social movements also insists on a performative idea of tribalness. There is a construction of a false universalization of a tribal way of life or indigenous identity, which is not only assumptious but not consensual. This is seen with the UN’s Working Group on Indigenous Populations which claims to provide solidarity to a globalized field of indigenous politics, whether that includes tribes in India or Peru. The universalization of the indigenous or tribal identity is disingenuous and simply false, and makes certain stereotypical assumptions of their lives characterized by a so-called “backwardness.” The tribal way of life is defined by strong relations to the land and nature, with tribal people often being denoted as “defenders” of the land and water. In the face of climate crisis and late-stage capitalism, tribal people have become harbingers of a longed for past and hopes for alternative futures.

It is true, many indigenous people have historically meaningful relationships to land with spiritual and cultural connections not attached to nationhood. In the face of settler-colonialism and implict tactics of cultural genocide, it is in fact necessary to center the voices of indigenous populations who have been historically targeted by the state and collaborators, especially when talking about issues like climate crisis and state violence. In this way, the politics of indigeneity is a necessary project in giving marginalized populations a larger role in socio-political movements and highlighting issues that various indigenous populations face. This development of indigenous politics can also be useful in pursuing a kind of representational politics that is productive in decentering stereotypes of various tribes and indigenous populations. What’s more, centering issues affecting different indigenous groups in socio-political movements is essential when talking about the ongoing crises around climate change and state violence.

The politics of indigeneity creates space for issues affecting indigenous people. At the same time, it involves a non-consensual idealization of indigenous populations, by non-indigenous people in political and social movement, often using ideas of indigeneity as a prop. The characterization of indigenous people as those with strong relationships to the land relies on stereotypical assumptions of indigenous people being “forest dwellers'', which is forefronted on a particular image of backwardness defined by a lack of modernity. I will elaborate on these ideas by looking at narratives of revolutionary Maoist movements in India.

Arundhati Roy’s “Walking with the Comrades” gives important insight into Adivasi groups of the Dandakaranya region in the People's Liberation Guerilla Army (PLGA), which is the armed front of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). It is evident, from this book and beyond, that the ideology of Maoism is significant in the ways it inspires many peasants, women and indigenous people, who utilize its principles to seek liberation, survival and self-determination. At the same time, Roy and various other intellectuals utilize the politics of indigeneity to curate rather disingenuous narratives of the Maoist movement being an indigenous movement.

Overplaying the role of indigenous people in Maoist movements, and framing them as leaders of the movement, co-opts the idea of indigeneity for one’s, albeit important, political agenda. This is evident in Roy’s book as she romanticizes the role of forest-dwelling Adivasis in the PLGA. One again, the politics of indigeneity is asserted by revolutionary intellectuals like Roy under the pretense of backwardness or lack of modernity. Alpa Shah denotes this as eco-incarceration, which she defines as “locking of indigenous people in their rootedness to the land and harmony with the land.” This kind of politics romanticizes indigenous peoples’ relationship with natural resources to use them as cultural symbols for their own agenda. Not only is this disingenuous to the indigenous people who are part of these revolutionary movements, but commodifies indigeneity as a selling point for a particular ideology.

It is indeed important to see what populations are participating in particular movements as that tells you a lot about the pursuits of the ideology and who it is oriented towards. At the same time, to overplay the role of particular groups for your own agenda by framing the Maoist movement as an indigenous movement does two things. Firstly, it distorts the diverse means of pursuing the politics of indigeneity which are not always through a Marxist lens. An example of this are indigenous social movements like the Naramada Bachao Andolan. Secondly, quite to its contradiction, it distorts the ideological principles of Maoism. Framing the Maoist movement as an indigenous movement underplays the issue of class struggles that Maoism centers its principles around. To frame a particular movement around an imagined idea of indigeneity radically simplifies its activism based on class struggle and dialectical materialism. What’s more, it also undermines the cultural politics of Adivasi groups by presenting a distortion of their roots as simply Maoist. The principles of Maoism would ask for the opposite and insist on a dialectical analysis of the relationship between class struggles and indigeneity in pursuing the politics of indigeneity rather than a reductive co-optation of indigneous struggles.

In conclusion, the politics of indigeneity is a necessary project in the way it gives indigenous populations a larger role in socio-political movements and centers the issues of various indigenous populations in the face of climate crisis and state violence. At the same time, this particular politics stands on a false universalization of the “tribal way of life” which pursues a reductive commodification of indigeneity as an organizing principle when it claims the Maoist movement to be an indigenous movement. What’s more, in the process of co-opting indigeneity, this particular politics simultaneously distorts the principles of the very ideology that is claimed to be pertinent to indigeneity.