if you want to remove an article from website contact us from top.

    the british regime followed approach towards tribal development

    Mohammed

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    get the british regime followed approach towards tribal development from screen.

    Tribal Development Policies in India

    Download Citation | Tribal Development Policies in India -An Overview | This paper is mainly focused on the tribal policies, tribal welfare, which have been implemen 1 ted by the Government of India. The discussion is... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

    HomeTribal StudiesAnthropologyCultural AnthropologyTribal Development

    Article

    Tribal Development Policies in India -An Overview

    January 2020 Authors: Ravi S Dalawai Mallappa Salagare Download citation

    To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

    Abstract

    This paper is mainly focused on the tribal policies, tribal welfare, which have been implemen 1 ted by the Government of India. The discussion is initiated right from the colonial period and passed through British regime, pre-independence, post-independence and continued to the present day. It is clear that one of the consequences of such an opening up would be to accelerate the process of bringing the tribals into the Indian mainstream, providing further nutritive maintenance to the freedom struggle. Hence, the British were interested in isolating the tribals and this was achieved by forming excluded and partially excluded areas. When the anthropologists also voiced their opinion for isolation, the British ideas of excluding the tribals received academic legitimacy. The study found that the tribal development policies are aimed to protect and initiate the all-round development of tribes to stay in the society by mingling with others. Introduction:

    Discover the world's research

    20+ million members

    135+ million publications

    700k+ research projects

    Join for free

    No full-text available

    To read the full-text of this research,

    you can request a copy directly from the authors.

    स्रोत : www.researchgate.net

    Tribal policy

    Read about Tribal Society in India. Brief Article about Tribal policy- Isolation, Assimilation and Integration. Guide to Sociology Student.

    Home » Tribal society » Tribal policy- Isolation, Assimilation and Integration

    Tribal policy- Isolation, Assimilation and Integration

    Historical Perspective -Isolation

    The coexistence of fundamentally different culture patterns and styles of living has always been a characteristic feature of the Indian stage. Unlike most parts of the world, in India, the arrival of new immigrants and the spread of their way of life did not necessarily cause the disappearance of earlier and materially less advanced ethnic groups.

    The old and the new co-existed. Such a consequence was partly due to the great size of the sub-continent and dearth of communications. More important than this was an attitude basic to Indian ideology, which accepted variety of cultural forms as natural and immutable, and did not consider their assimilation to one dominant pattern in any way desirable. This does not mean, however, that none of the tribes ever became incorporated in the systems of hierarchically ranked castes. Wherever economic necessity or encroachment of their habitant by advanced communities led to continued inter-action between tribes and Hindus, cultural distinctions were blurred, and what had once been self-contained and more or less independent tribes gradually acquired the status of castes.

    In many cases they entered caste systems at the lowest rung of the ladder. Some untouchable castes of Southern India, such as the Cherumans and the Panyers of Kerala, were undoubtedly at one time independent tribes, and in their physical characteristics they still resemble neighboring tribal groups, which have remained outside the Hindu society. There are some exceptions, such as the Meitheis of Assam who achieved a position comparable to that of Kshatriyas. Tribes who retained their tribal identity and resisted inclusion within the Hindu fold fared on the whole better than the assimilated groups and were not treated as untouchables, even if they indulged in such low-caste practices as eating beef. Thus the Raj Gond princes sacrificed and ate cows without thereby debasing their status in the eyes of their Hindu neighbors, who recognized their social and cultural separateness and did not insist on conformity to Hindu patterns of behavior.

    This respect for the tribal way of life prevailed as long as contacts between tribes and Hindu populations of open plains were of a casual nature. The tribal people, though considered strange and dangerous, were taken for granted as part of the world of hills and forests, and a more or less frictionless co-existence was possible, because there was no population pressure and the advanced communities did not feel any urge to impose their own values on people placed clearly outside the spheres of Hindu civilization.

    This position remained unchanged during the Muslim period. Now and then a military campaign extending for a short spell into the wilds of tribal country would bring the inhabitants temporarily to the notice of princes and chroniclers, but for long period the hill men and forest-dwellers were left to themselves. Under British rule, however, a new situation arose. The extension of a centralized administration over areas, which previously were outside the effective control of princely rulers, deprived many aboriginal tribes of their autonomy. Though British administrators had no intention of interfering with tribesmen's rights and traditional manner of living, the very process of establishment of law and order in outlying areas exposed the tribes to the pressure of more advanced populations.

    Thus in areas which had previously been virtually un-administered and hence unsafe for outsiders who did not enjoy the confidence and goodwill of the tribal inhabitants, traders and money-lenders could now establish themselves under the protection of the British administration and in many cases they were followed by settlers who succeeded in acquiring large stretches of tribes' land. Administrative officers who did not understand tribal system of land tenure introduced uniform methods of revenue collection. But these had the un-intended effect of facilitating the alienation of tribal land to members of advanced populations. Though it is unlikely that British officials actively favored the latter at the expense of primitive tribesmen, little was done to stem the rapid erosion of tribal rights to land.

    In many areas tribals unable to resist the gradual alienation of their ancestral land, either withdrew further into hills and tracts of marginal land, or accepted the economic status of tenants or agricultural labourers on the land their forefathers had owned. There were some tribes, however, who rebelled against an administration, which allowed outsiders to deprive them of their land. In the Chhota Nagpur and the Santhal pargansas such rebellions of desperate tribesmen recurred throughout the nineteenth century, and there were minor risings in the Agency tracts of Madras and in some of the districts of Bombay inhabited by Bhils. Thus the Santhals are believed to have lost about 10,000 men in their rebellion of 1855. None of these insurrections were aimed primarily at the British administration, but they were a reaction to their exploitation and oppression by Hindu landlords and money-lenders who had established themselves in tribal areas and were sheltered by a Government which had instituted a system of land settlement and administration of justice favoring the advanced communities at the expense of simple and illiterate tribes. In some cases these rebellions led to official inquiries and to legislative enactments aimed at protecting tribes' right to their land. Seen in historical perspective it appears that land alienation laws had, on the whole, only a palliative effect. In most areas encroachment on land held by tribes continued even in the face of protective legislation.

    स्रोत : www.sociologyguide.com

    Tribals and Tribal Policy

    The issue of tribes has been a lot in news - Tribal displacement owing to Bullet train project or construction of Sardar Vallabbhai statue, forest rights

    Home Society

    Tribals and Tribal Policy

    December 4, 2018Reading Time: 8 mins read

    11.3k VIEWS Share on WhatsApp Share on Telegram Share on Facebook Make PDF

    Manifest Pedagogy

    The issue of tribes has been a lot in news – Tribal displacement owing to Bullet train project or construction of Sardar Vallabbhai statue, forest rights issue during elections in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, a US Christian missionary killed by Sentinelese tribe. All these  have brought the issue of government attitude towards tribes back to the focus. Governmental attitude includes Constitutional provisions, policies, Acts, schemes and programmes and institutions.

    In news

    Protection of indigenous people and recent Sentinel issue.

    Placing it in syllabus

    Paper 2:

    Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

    Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by the center and states.

    Static dimensions

    Tribal policy: Pre-independence and post-independence

    Different models of tribal development

    Current dimensions

    Draft National Policy on Tribals

    Content

    Tribal policy since the time of British:

    During the British rule in the pre-independence period, most of the tribal communities in India remained isolated from the mainstream of national life. Tribal areas were kept secluded and cut off from the rest of the people. The policy of the British government was solely directed and dominated by the colonial interests and based on isolation and exploitation of the tribals.

    Different models of tribal development:

    The approaches to the development of the tribal people in India can, be divided into three categories such as; 1. Isolationist Approach, 2. Assimilation Approach, and 3. Integration Approach

    Isolationist Approach:

    It was followed by the British after the policies of the British led to revolts against them by the Tribes. It manifested in the form of British designating tribal areas as ‘excluded areas ‘ based on the principle of non-interference

    Under British rule, the extension of a centralized administration over areas, which previously were outside the effective control of princely rulers, deprived many aboriginal tribes of their autonomy.

    Though British administrators had no intention of interfering with tribesmen’s rights and traditional manner of living, the very process of establishment of law and order in outlying areas exposed the tribes to the pressure of more advanced populations.

    The areas which had previously been virtually un-administered have been unsafe for outsiders who did not enjoy the confidence and goodwill of the tribal inhabitants, traders and money-lenders could now establish themselves under the protection of the British administration and in many cases they were followed by settlers who succeeded in acquiring large stretches of tribes’ land.

    Administrative officers who did not understand tribal system of land tenure introduced uniform methods of revenue collection. But these had the un-intended effect of facilitating the alienation of tribal land to members of advanced populations.

    There were some tribes, however, who rebelled against an administration, which allowed outsiders to deprive them of their land.

    In the Chhota Nagpur and the Santhal Parganas such rebellions of desperate tribesmen recurred throughout the nineteenth century, and there were minor risings in the Agency tracts of Madras and in some of the districts of Bombay inhabited by Bhils.

    Santhals are believed to have lost about 10,000 men in their rebellion of 1855. None of these insurrections were aimed primarily at the British administration, but they were a reaction to their exploitation and oppression by Hindu landlords and money-lenders.

    In some cases these rebellions led to official inquiries and to legislative enactments aimed at protecting tribes’ right to their land. Seen in historical perspective it appears that land alienation laws had, on the whole, only a palliative effect. In most areas encroachment on land held by tribes continued even in the face of protective legislation.

    Assimilation Approach

    This believed in mainstream Tribals and their culture completely eroding their culture completely by making them accept the mainstream culture

    Acceptance or denial of the necessity for assimilation with Hindu society is ultimately a question of values. In the past, Hindu society had been tolerant of groups that would not conform to the standards set by the higher castes.

    Those groups were denied equal ritual status; but no efforts were made to deflect them from their chosen style of living. In recent years this attitude has changed.

    It is the influence of the Western belief in universal values which has encouraged a spirit of intolerance vis-a-vis cultural and social divergences.

    India is a multilingual, a multiracial country and multi-cultural. And as long as the minorities are free to follow their traditional way of life, it would seem only fair that the culture and the social order of tribes however distinct from that of the majority community should also be respected.

    स्रोत : journalsofindia.com

    Do you want to see answer or more ?
    Mohammed 3 month ago
    5

    Guys, does anyone know the answer?

    Click For Answer