National
Seminar –Tribal Heritage of South India
The seminar on
‘Tribal Heritage of South India’ held in Mangalore from December
26-29, 2000 was the second in the series of seminars being held on
subject. The first seminar was held in 1995, focusing on the Northeast.
The basic objectives of the seminars are (i) to recognize the distinct
tribal heritage, encourage preservation and restoration of the heritage
and (ii) develop indigenous models of research for understanding tribal
heritage in all its guises. This particular seminar provided the meeting
ground of over forty experts specializing in different disciplines of
Anthropology, Archaeology, Folklore, Linguistics, Literature and Sociology
belonging to different states mainly from southern India. Mangalore
University co-hosted the seminar.
We began with an
exposition of the term ‘ Anadi ‘ as cross- linked with ‘ Adi ‘
representing the timeless tribal heritage. We challenged the very notion
of ‘tribe’ as an arrested stage in the evolutionary ladder. Different
terms Adivasi, Vanyajati and paradigms such as Tribe, Caste, and Nature
and Culture were examined, thereby deconstructing the category of
‘tribe’ as a referential category unto itself. The chief questions
that we addressed were: Who is a tribal and what constitutes tribal
identity. We referred to the ‘tribe’ largely as a cultural category
and as a linguistic category juxtaposed, not opposed to the rural and
urban communities. There were five major themes around which presentations
were organized. These were; ecological heritage; sacred traditions;
imaginal heritage; linguistic heritage; and continuity and change. We
explored the many dimensions of tribal heritage and the element of change
conjoined with it.
Particularly
fascinating was the emphasis on the integration of tribal culture with
elements of nature - sky, earth, water and trees. In fact, a tribal
regards each one of them as enlivened and bestowed with consciousness. He
reveres them as deities; turns to them in times of crises; and
communicates with them through rituals and incantations, through song and
dance, and through narratives and myths. This is the primordial pristine
vision from which the new world order has much to learn.
There was reference to
cultural pluralism and organic pluralism. On the one plane there were
descriptions of several tribal lifestyles and cultural practices. At
another level, we were abstracting methodological issues and debates from
these descriptions. We talked about mythologizing history and
historicising mythology, We talked about tribal heritage from the vantage
point of myths, rituals, beliefs, customs, symbols, artistic creations and
people’s wisdom. There are no written texts, no records and no
documents, yet, knowledge is most precisely preserved and perpetuated.
There are verbal texts and multiple forms of expression that enfold the
spoken words, visual images, and aural genres through which knowledge is
transmitted. More importantly, all knowledge is experiential and enmeshed
with the fabric of life as its warp and woof. Tribal cultures are rich
repositories of mythical and historical past and yet provide rich and
powerful models for contemporary social order. This constitutes that core
of tribal heritage. There was also the dimension of communication at the
intra-tribal-plane, inter-tribal plane and tribal-non-tribal plane. There
has been incessant intervention in tribal life both at the political level
and at the academic level. Tribal cultures respond to such situations in
their own way. Within this perspective, we discussed the agenda of
socio-political management strategies of the tribals and in the larger
framework of conjuring strategies for the tribals.
What came up repeatedly in the discussion was the discourse on the polemics of ‘They and We’, ‘Self and Other’ , Particular and Universal’. Whether boldly or tacitly, each one of us was repositioning our own identity in the larger context of the tribal ‘Other’ .We agreed that there is impending need to ‘essentialise tribal identity in terms of their own perceptions and cultural assertions.
This has far reaching
implications in the context of planning for tribal cultures. Each one of
us agreed that somewhere along the line, the tribal voices had not been
heard. The issue of empowerment of the tribals, sharing discourses and
domains were discussed at length. There was a general consensus on the
proposition that academics particularly anthropologists should intervene
at three levels (i) at the academic level whereby they should evolve
appropriate methodologies to understand tribal heritage in its own idiom
taking note of the new cultural landscapes; (ii) at the planning and
policy making level where they should uphold the safeguarding of tribal
heritage and evolve means and ways to optimise their life situations, and
(iii) at the active level wherein they should generate sensitivity towards
tribal cultures among lay persons and bureaucrats alike.
No serninarever ends, neither did this one. For, the ideas that are generated in such meetings remain with the participants. In moments of leisure quietitude the reminiscences of occasions such as this one lead to dialogue with oneself and reaffirm commitments.
Dr
Nita Mathur is a Research Associate in J S division.
