Abstract

The charge of marginalization and step motherly treatment by the Indian state against the states of the North East is a common refrain, not just in political circles and academia but also among the various people’s movement that have emerged in this much misunderstood region. This contention is by no means without substance; paternalism continues to color most of the major initiatives of the Indian state towards attempted resolution of many claims of the tribal communities in this region. However, what is often missed in this hullaballoo over marginalization and neglect by the state is how even from within the marginalized; certain groups, through varied practices (which can at best be termed nefarious and discriminatory) continue to dominate and further marginalize smaller groups. By no means are such practices of recent origin, however, their scale and sophistication often through legitimate use of legislative sanction represents the latest manifestation of this dichotomous power relation between oppressed groups. The state of Manipur best exemplifies such practices. This paper will attempt to illustrate the case of tribes in the state of Manipur against the dominant Meitei community. The continued discriminatory practices by the dominant Meitei community has forced the tribals of the state to seek an alternative administrative set up, independent of the Meitei majority and based in the hill areas of the state. This paper is an attempt to showcase how social work practice can be advanced under such context.

Exclusion & Marginalization: A Perspective on North East India

Within the Indian state for decades there has been institutionalized oppression, exclusion, discrimination and denial of rights in various forms against the ‘periphery’. The periphery here comprises broadly of Dalits, Tribals, Denotified tribes, Women, Religious minorities, Ethnic minorities and Sexual minorities. However from within this expansive categorization of what is acknowledged as the periphery, the various tribal groups of the seven north eastern states viz. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura occupy a somewhat special place. The ensuing discussion will bring this claim into perspective.

The sense of alienation, marginalization and exclusion of the North East can be narrowed down to five major factors. The first being historical; Shubir Bhaumik (2009) writes ‘India’s North East is a region rooted more in the accident of geography than in the shared bonds of history, culture and tradition’. During the colonial period the British consciously kept the tribal areas isolated and followed a policy of non interference with their customary way of life and traditional systems of governance. The legislations like the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873, the Chin Hills Regulation Act 1896 and declaring the hill areas as ‘Partially Excluded’ and ‘Excluded’ through the Government of India Act, 1935 are examples of the policy of non interference. “Needless to emphasize that this strategy was primarily dictated by the fact of the British inability to bring the region under its direct control, and secondarily, to build buffers against the Burmese and the Chinese with the local” (Pathy 1997). Thus in effect most of the tribal areas in this region were never brought under the direct administrative control of the British, however once the British granted India independence these areas were brought under the administrative control of the state of Assam. This arbitrary inclusion to the Indian Union has been the cause of much anguish for ethnic groups like the Nagas and Meiteis.

Further the illogical demarcation of international borders (Indo-Burma, Indo-Bangladesh) by the British, without any consultation and consent, resulted in loss of traditional territory and trade routes to Chittagong, Shyllet, Comilla and Mymensingh for many ethnic and tribal groups in the region. For many of the trans border tribes in the states of Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh (then North East Frontier Agency, NEFA) the redrawing of boundaries left out many of the cognate tribes, effectively dividing and marginalizing them on both sides of the border; the Nagas and Chin tribes being the main aggrieved groups. Post independence, state formation engineered by the Indian state has also resulted in similar feelings with several tribes being reduced to a minority in several states where they are excluded and discriminated against. Such negative practice has affected the psyche of the population more so of the educated sections who feel that the Indian state has no space for them and their concerns.

Secondly, the denial of the right to ‘self determination’, political/regional autonomy and the militarization of the region to counter such movements has alienated large sections of tribes and ethnic groups. The scale of military presence in the region is baffling, almost resembling a war zone, especially in the states of Manipur and Nagaland.

Thirdly, the numerous human rights violations, extra judicial killings, imposition of draconian acts like Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 (AFSPA) and continued military presence has not helped the state gain the confidence of the people. Even now, the Indian state views most of the problems and issues of the region, political or otherwise, from the prism of national security and law and order – with military intervention being the preferred means of engagement. This has in large measure contributed to the sense of marginalization and second class citizenship – sub nationals as is often referred to.

Fourthly, with the rise of an educated class within most of the major ethnic communities, articulations for redressal of several issues like ethnic homeland, domination and exclusion by larger communities, existential threats by illegal migration (both cross border and internal) has only increased. The slow response of the Indian state towards such agitations has only further marginalized and sidelined these communities.

The development deficit is the fifth reason for the perceive sense of marginalization and step motherly treatment by the Indian state. Investment in terms of roadways, railways, industry, telecommunication, border trade, educational infrastructure etc. has always been lower in this region compared to mainland India. The much trumpeted ‘Look East Policy’ is being positioned as a panacea to the economic woes of the region, but close to two decades has passed since the inception of this policy and the North East has yet to see any benefits. Trade, commerce, industry and investments continue to be far below the national average.

To sum it up, the formation of the seven states has in no way diluted the feelings of marginalization and exclusion among the various ethnic groups. Till date, contestations both new and old for land, resources, political representation, political and financial autonomy continue in many of these states with greater frequency and greater intensity. The state despite repeated occurrence of such contestations has yet to evolve a dedicated mechanism to engage with such claims and counter claims. Delaying and stop-gap measures have been and continue to be the main tactic of the state to address many of the main issues confronting this region. Such measures have only contributed to the sense of alienation and marginalization of the people in the region against the Indian state.

Situating the Context

The present state of Manipur is one of the eight states of the eastern most region of India bordering Burma (also known as Myanmar); a region categorized in popular discourse as the North East region (NER). It is bordered to the north by the state of Nagaland and to the West by the State of Assam and Mizoram to the south. Manipur can broadly be divided into two parts based on the topography of the state, the Hills and the Dales The hill areas account for 90 percent (20,087 sq km) of the total geographical area of the state; the valley accounts for just 10 percent (2,238 sq km) of the area. As per the provisional data from the 2011 Census, the state registered a population of 27, 21, 756 lakhs with a population density of 123 persons per sq km.

At present there are nine districts in the state, four of which are in the valley area with the remaining five forming the hill areas of the state. The hill areas constitute of five districts viz. Chandel, Churachandpur, Senapati, Tamenglong and Ukhrul while the valley districts include Imphal East and West District, Bishenpur and Thoubal District. The valley areas (dale) of the state are inhabited by the Meities and the hill districts of the state are inhabited by the tribes either from the Naga ethnic group or the Kuki-Chin-Zomi ethnic group. The Nagas are concentrated in the hill districts of Chandel, Senapati, Tamenglong and & Ukhrul and the Kuki Chin-Zomi group is concentrated in Churachandpur district. The Kukis however are well-spread across the state and have a sizeable presence in Senapati, Chandel, Ukhrul and Tamenglong districts. The 33 tribes from these two broad ethnic groups account for 40 percent of the state’s population and occupy 90 percent of total geographical area of the state.

Tracing the historical relationship between the hills and the valley

Pre colonial contact between the tribes and the Meiteis were primarily through barter trade of items such as minor forest produce, timber, fruits, bamboos etc for items like salt, dry fish and cotton textiles. Such contacts were as Kamei (2007) notes ‘mutually beneficial and socially congenial’. The expansion of the princely Meitei state into the hills around the valley resulted in some hill villages, especially those along trade routes being conquered and brought under the control of the Meitei rulers; these were made to pay to nominal tributes to the Meitei King.

However, once the Meitei forces were withdrawn the tribal villages continued to remain independent in their hills and their life was not interrupted by the Meiteis. The state imposed tributes on some selected villages which were situated on the trade routes. Thus, the policy of the Meitei state was non interference into the hill tribes, their polity, way of life and economic pursuits (ibid.).

The congenial relationship between the tribes and the Meiteis greatly changed with the accession of Maharaja Garibaniwaz to the Meitei kingdom. In 1735 he imposed the ‘Lallup’ (feudal service) system over the conquered hill villages, most of which were situated along major trade routes. This forced system of labor and service was greatly resented by the tribals. The reign of Garibaniwaz was also a period when Hinduism was formally made a state religion which contributed in part to further fracturing the relationship between the valley and the hills. Kamei, G writes

Hinduism created cleavage between the hill tribes and Meitei plainsmen. With the conversion of the ruling families and the people to Hindusim and the introduction of the caste system the intimate social relationship between the Hindu Meitei and the non Hindu tribes underwent a great change. Social barriers cropped up due to caste and difference in dietry habits; the non Hindu tribes were looked down upon by the Kshatriya Meiteis as they were outside the Hindu Varna system. The liberal social policy of the ancient Meitei Kings was abandoned and was replaced by orthodox caste oriented attitude towards the hill tribes (Kamei, G 2007).

The arrival of the British and subsequent defeat of the Meitei king in the Anglo Manipur war of 1891 resulted in the transfer of the hill area administration to the British Political Agent and the President of the State Durbar in 1892. The influx of another tribal group, the Kukis into the state of Manipur from the early 1800s and their subsequent settlements on lands traditionally belonging to Nagas and earlier Kuki-Chin villages by the Meitei Maharaja and the British Political Agent added another dimension to the relationship between the hill tribes and the Meiteis. These unauthorized settlements further strained the relationship between the Nagas and the Meiteis and also between the Nagas and the Kukis, with a return to the old ways of village raid and head hunting by the Nagas followed by retaliatory attacks from the Kukis. The repercussions of these settlements is felt even to this day with the prime example being the clash between the Nagas and Kukis over the proposal for the upgradation of the Sardar Hills sub division in Senapati to an administrative district .

Post the Kuki rebellion of 1917, for administrative purpose and better monitoring the hill area of the state was bifurcated into two sub divisions, namely, North West headquarter in Tamenglong and North East with Ukhrul as its headquarter. With the departure of the British in 1947, for brief period from 1947 to 1949 the princely state of Manipur existed as sovereign state. The hill areas in this period were for the first time formally brought under regular administrative control through the Manipur Hill Peoples’ Regulation, 1947 and the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947. Under this state constitution 18 seats were reserved for the hills areas in the State Assembly and one Minister was appointed as the statutory head of the hill areas. However, even before the promulgation of such legislation, relations between the hill tribes, especially the Nagas were beginning to sour; especially in the wake of the rise of the Naga Nationalist movement under the Naga National Council (NNC). The allegiance of the emerging literate Nagas was with their brethren in the Naga Hills, and the fast rising consciousness of shared ethnicity manifested in demands for a merger with the Naga Hills. The Meiteis did not take kindly to this demand and their actions since 1947, and more so post the 90s; legally or otherwise are indicative of their nefarious intentions to continue domination of the tribes. The ensuing section will delineate on such discriminatory, exclusionist practices of the Meitei community which are indicative of their intentions to subdue and dominate the tribals socially, economically and more importantly, politically.

Enforced Exclusion, Marginalization and Oppression of Tribals in Manipur

Much of the Meitei grievances against the Indian state can be traced to the coerced Manipur Merger Agreement of 1949. Prior to the merger Manipur had briefly existed as a sovereign nation, this forced merger is seen by many Meitei nationalist as an outright occupation by the Indian state. The second major trigger was the declaration of the state as a ‘Disturbed area’ in 1980 and the subsequent imposition of the AFSPA. The continued denial of liberty, freedom and democracy along with continued military presence, human rights violation and extra judicial killings have only reinforced the grievances of the Meitei. This fate is however shared by all the citizens of Manipur and not just the Meiteis.

Despite being denied a fair deal by the Indian state, the Meiteis are themselves guilty of such practices against their tribal counterparts in the hill areas of the state. Since the attainment of statehood, the Meitei majority has been adopting practices that deliberately misrepresent and exclude the tribals of the state in all spheres, be it in terms of economic resources or political autonomy. The varied reprehensible practices have only served to institutionalize the oppression of the tribals.

Some of the most prominent examples of the discriminatory and exclusionist practices of the Meitei majority are listed below:

Imphal Centric Governance/Administration
Since the state of Manipur came into being in 1972 Imphal has been the beneficiary of all major administrative arrangements and institutions. All important infrastructure and facilities in the state are located in the Imphal valley; tribals have limited access to them. For example, Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development, Central Agriculture University, Government Polytechnic, Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Science, Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Manipur Institute of Technology, Manipur Central University, Multi Stadia Complex, National Institute of Technology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Rice Research Centre, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Institute, Soil-Testing laboratory, Sports Authority of India and State Institute of Rural Development are all located in Imphal. This bias against the hill areas has only widened the gulf between the tribals and the Meiteis of the Imphal valley. Only in recent years the State Government has constructed two mini secretariats in Tamenglong and Ukhrul district; but, much remains to be done.

II Non-implementation of Delimitation Act in Manipur

As mentioned earlier, of the 60 member Assembly of the state, 40 MLAs represent the valley area while the hills account for just 20 MLAs. At the moment the 40 MLAs of the valley area represent an average area of 55 sq km with a population of approximately 35,294 persons while their counterparts in the hills the average area is 1000 sq km with a population of about 44,107. The 2001 Census records that the total population of Manipur at 23 lakhs; accordingly the Delimitation Act of 2001 mandated that the Assembly be restructured as per the new population figure of the state. If the delimitation had been done the number of Assembly constituencies in the Imphal valley would have been reduced to 35; a reduction of five Assembly seats from the existing 40. The hill areas would have gained five Assembly constituencies as per the new act, raising the number of tribal assembly constituencies to 25; this delimitation was never implemented and consequently political representations remain skewed.

‘ In addition to the disproportionate representation, there is complete imbalance in the field of administrative set-up and development between tribal areas and valley Districts of Manipur. For instances, there is one Block Development Office (BDO) for every 837 sq.kms and 160 sq.kms in hill areas and valley areas respectively; one Police Station for every 670 sq.kms and 90 sq.kms in hill and valley area respectively; and in case of healthcare services, there is one PHSC for every 85.48 sq.kms catering the needs of 3754 person in hill areas whereas the figure for valley area is 11 sq.kms and 6887 person.’

III Violation of service quota and promotion rules in state government services

The State Government has yet to operationalise the Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Post and Services (for SC/ST) Act, 1976. Under thegovernment of Manipur, there are 85,000 state employees ranging from class I to the class IV in 55 different departments. According to 1971 Census, the reservation quota in respect of the tribal people is 31 per cent and under the rules of reservation policy, tribal people are supposed to fill 26,000 posts. However in reality, there are only 13,000 tribals in the state government employment list. ‘The state government has never evaluated the reservation quota as 1981, 1991 and 2001 Census’ (UNC 2011: 14)

‘The status of implementation of reservation quota for tribal has not found mention in the Governor’s address in Manipur Legislative Assembly since 1972 till date. This will be surprising considering that the Governor is the guardian of the tribal people, as per the Constitution. There is no nodal authority assigned by the state government to monitor the implementation of reservation quota. In the given situation, the state government has been violating the reservation policy with impunity to the detriment of the tribals in the state.’

IV Imposition of unwanted legislations to deprive rights of tribal people in the state

Some of the initiatives of the Meitei dominated Manipur Government for imposition of legislations that deprive tribals of self governance, rights over customary land and resources, right to education, right to health etc. are as follows:

The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960
When the act was first implemented, all hill areas were excluded from the jurisdiction of the Act; for protection of tribal areas. After the sixth amendment to the said Act in 1989, certain clause were inserted that allowed the state government to extend the Act (whole or part of any section of the Act) to any of the hill areas by a notification in the official gazette. Thus, the Manipur Land and Revenue Reform Act (MLR & LRA), 1960 was extended to 89 villages in Churuchanpur district in 1962, vide notification number 142/12/60, dated 22/02/1962; 14 villages in Sadar Hills of Senapati district, vide notification number 138/4/64, dated 25/02/1965; and 14 villages in Khoupum valley of Tamenglong district, vide notification number 3/12/83, dated 14/11/1987. This is nothing short of encroachment on tribal land in the hills by dubious means. The Meitei dominated Government is now even trying to club certain areas of hill districts into the Imphal valley; as is evident from the attempts to include certain villages from Tamenglong district neighbouring the Jiribam subdivision of the Imphal valley.

The Manipur Hill Areas (Acquisition of Chiefs Rights) Act, 1967
This Act empowers the state government to transfer all rights, titles and interests of the Village chiefs over land in the hill areas and vest the same in the Government. However due to stiff opposition by the tribal Chief’s this Act has yet to be implemented.

Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 and Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council (Third amendment) Act, 2008
This Act has been central to the contestation between the Tribes and the Meiteis. Despite the legitimate and sustained demand of the tribals in Manipur to include the hill areas under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution; the subsequent boycott of Autonomous District Council (ADC) elections for more than 20 years, the state government has refused this demand. Instead they have introduced four separate amendments in 2000, 2002, 2008 and 2011 to the parent ADC Act of 1971, further weakening the Act. Elections were held to the ADC (after the latest amendment to the original act in 2008) despite protest and boycott by majority of the tribals. The existing Act does not provide legislative nor financial autonomy; all decisions are routed through the state government. The irony of the present ADC members (especially those from Naga dominated districts) is that since their election in 2010 they are functioning out of Imphal. Such functioning mocks the very essence of political autonomy for tribals.

Imposition of the ADC and refusal of the Sixth Schedule have been major issues contributing to hill – valley and tribes – meitei divide. The recommendations of the Hill Area Committee (HAC), that the hill areas be brought under the Sixth Schedule has been refused by the Meitei dominated Assembly.

The ADCs and HAC are neither under the Fifth Schedule (Administration of Tribal areas) nor the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution as was the case with other tribal areas of the country. The small size of HAC members and the manner in which it is made fully dependent on the State Government through elected representatives (MLAs) from Hill areas is its greatest weakness. Furthermore, in contravention of democratic decentralisation, the entire functioning of ADCs is being centralised at Imphal under a single Department (Hills & TD) with one Minister in charge of all the affairs.

V Imposition of Manipuri language

The imposition of the Meitei language (Meitei Mayek) in the education curriculum till the eighth standard since January 1999 is a prime example of the Meitei attempt to assert their dominance over the tribals. Despite protest this much despised imposition is still in place.

VI Continued Militarisation in the Hill areas

The law and order situation in hills district has improved tremendously after the cease-fire agreement was signed between Nagas and the Indian Government in 1997 and the signing of the Suspension of Operations between major Kuki-Chin insurgent groups. Despite such developments the deployment of troops and imposition of AFSPA in the hill areas continues. In contrast, the AFSPA has been lifted from seven Assembly constituencies in the Imphal valley on the recommendation of the Chief Minister. No hill areas were recommended for similar treatment despite the overall improvement in law and order. It is another matter altogether the imposition of the Disturbed Area Act has been extended for another year to December 2013 on the recommendation of the Chief Minister.

VII Deliberate misrepresentation of the tribal community

A cursory glance of the Manipur Cultural Policy would give the impression that no other community exists in Manipur except for the Meiteis. This policy has not taken into consideration the presence of tribal culture and hence finds no mention in this document. This is a deliberate act of omission. More recently, in the 2011 census enumeration, the State Government had issued instructions to census officials to limit the decadal growth among the tribals and suppress the population figures. The Meitei are thus deliberately misrepresenting the status of the tribals in the state.

Response of the Tribes vis. a vis. the Meiteis

In response to the varied discriminatory and exclusionist ways of the dominant Meitei community, the tribals in the state have converged over two alternative administrative arrangements which seek to sever tribal administration from that of the state in general. The first response is the demand of the Naga tribals led by the UNC for an Alternative Arrangement (AA). This demand is however limited to the districts that are dominated by the Nagas. The other response has taken the form of the demand for the establishment of an ‘Autonomous Tribal State’ (ATS) within the state of Manipur under Article 244A of the Indian Constitution. This proposal has been advocated by the Zomi Council from Churachandpur District. The ATS proposal is very inclusive in that it seeks the establishment of a separate autonomous administrative unit for all tribals in the hill areas of the state by bringing the existing six Autonomous District Councils of the hill areas under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. It is rooted in the idea of complete regional autonomy for tribal areas in with an ATS Legislative Assembly headed by elected tribal representatives headed by a Chief Minister and a Council of Ministers. The ATS will have the powers to make laws for tribal areas of Manipur along with independent financial power in the form of a separate budget for the hill areas. However the Government of India has yet to respond to these proposals although active talk continues on the issue of the AA via the Indo-Naga Peace process.

The next section will enunciate the core areas for indigenization of social work from the stand point of ‘exclusion’ of tribes within such settings. This type of setting seems to be on the rise especially in North East India where contestations for economic resources and political powers have often been at the cost of smaller tribes. However, conclusions have largely been drawn from the tribe experience in Manipur against the dominant Meitei community.

Indigenization of Social Work from the Stand Point of Exclusion

Exclusion both overt and covert is now widely acknowledged and accepted as an impairment to the empowerment of people. It is a dynamic hegemonic process aimed at maintaining the existing power relation and continued subjugation of certain groups. Hegemony normalizes the state control over resources particularly through the use of the mass media, power relations, policies of the government, educational system etc.; depriving large sections of people their rightful claims. The exclusion of tribals in the process of development, policy making, planning etc. is not the product of individuals, rather it is a ploy of the dominant section to not just maintain the status quo but also further their cause without it seeming nefarious.

In light of such circumstances, the need to adopt a tribe centric, anti-oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice of social work aimed at redressal of structural inequalities cemented by the dominant in various ways is of paramount importance. ‘A basic feature of anti-discriminatory practice is the ability/willingness to see [that] discrimination and oppression are so often central to the situations that social workers encounter’ (Thompson 1997: 238 as cited in Powell 2001:155). He views the need to be sensitive to the existence of discrimination and oppression as a basic social work concern. As Ife pointed out:

All social work must therefore incorporate multidimensional analyses of structural disadvantage, and this must be at the forefront of social work thinking, at whatever level the social worker is practicing. Structural inequality and oppression are the context within which social workers practice, and if they do not deliberately seek to be part of the solution, their practice will inevitably become part of the problem (Ife 2001: 148).

Social workers cannot be perpetuators of the state power or be status quoist but should be moral negotiators of justice in the social order. As Bodhi (2011) writes, ‘The traditionalist position must be confronted at all costs and new liberatory practice paradigms must be developed. We must challenge the notion that we are agents of control and reclaim our role as agents of change’ (Bodhi 2011: 296).

The tribe centric anti oppressive, anti-discriminatory practice framework would enable practioners to work with and through oppressed and excluded groups. With reference to Manipur and the larger context of the North East (from the stand point of exclusion) there are four broad areas for indigenization of social work practice:

Policy Praxis
Policy praxis entails two measures;one involves directly confronting lopsided policy measures and initiatives of the state which seek to sideline, exclude and marginalize specific sections of the state not just politically but also in the social, cultural and economic sphere. In the context of Manipur this will invariably involve confrontations not just with the state but also other people’s organisation representing the dominant majority.

The second and more important component of policy practice involves advocating for solutions which emerge from within the marginalized. The demand for the AA arrangements by the Nagas and the ATS by the Zomi Council are expressions of such solutions. These responses are manifestations of the ‘self determination’ principle not in the secessionist sense but the desire for genuine control over their own affairs and control over the decision making affairs which directly affect them. These are organic solutions emerging directly from the lived reality of the tribes. Therefore, it is vital that tribe centric anti oppressive social work in such setting begins from this framework. As Riamei (2012) notes, ‘Within a policy framework, it is irrefutable that one must consider the contextual reality on which the policy is to be applied. For the policy to work, the voices articulated from people’s live experiences needs consideration and threadbare understanding’. Policy praxis should be one of the core areas of tribe centric anti oppressive social work practice. The need for such practice is even more in states like Manipur whose visibility in the Indian media is only in terms of AFSPA and military atrocities (which are without doubt important issues by themselves).

Research Practice
‘Research may be defined as an activity that consists of asking questions and attempting to answer them. The attempt at answering questions does not mean that the researcher will eventually find a satisfactory answer. It is likely that the research may end up with more questions about the phenomenon that he/she has set out to answer’ (Jayaram 2006:3)

What distinguishes the scientific ways of asking and attempting to answer questions from that of layman is the use of appropriate research methodology. ‘Methodological issues are concerned with the logic of inquiry that is: How are we to discover and validate what we think exists?’ (ibid. 2006:4). Essentially there are two distinct philosophical approaches regarding the methodology of social sciences: the ‘Positivist’ and ‘Non-Positivist’ popularly known as ‘Constructivist.’ Whatever research one is engaged with, the end result should be empirical in nature to confront the state for change in policy.

Research is one of the strongest tools for indigenizing social work practice. It is widely acknowledged that research can direct policy measures; hence, it is of crucial importance to tribe centric, anti oppressive social work practice. Through empirical research one can effectively highlight the issues and problems of tribes to counter policies and programmes adopted that are detrimental to tribes, and also highlight new areas requiring intervention. The focus should remain on exposing power differentials between the oppressor and the oppressed and the hegemonizing tendencies of the oppressor which normalizes oppression. These research methodologies, findings and analysis could well go against accepted rationale and theories but as Nandy (2012) puts it; ‘The oppressed do have their own, often-implicit theories of oppression and have no obligation to be guided by our ideas of the scientific, the rational and the dignified. They have every right to be historically, economically and politically incorrect.’

Research can orient or reorient the course of government policy and programmes hence it is of paramount importance that tribe centric anti oppressive social work practice devote ample attention towards prioritizing research studies.

Social Movement through Social Action

Social movement through the social action method is another crucial area whereby the tribal centric anti oppressive social work practice framework can be built upon. Saldanha (2008) writes,

By basing the methodology of social action on the concept of class-tribe-gender; the identities, relations and the collective interest emerging from them; on conflict and change; and by raising the question of the causes of inequality; one effectively and more relevantly widens the scope of social work and gives social action an entirely different strategic orientation, inclusive of other methods of social work. (Saldanha :117-118)

Tribals struggles are to a large extent based on denial of social, political, economic and cultural rights; peaceful co-existence in large measures will depend on the recognition and acceptance of such claims. Bhatia (2010) argued in the context of Manipur that peaceful co-existence is possible only with the fulfilment of tribal rights, corroborated by providing evidence of a fracture reactionary policy by the Government of Manipur.

In a way social movement through social action is a continuation of policy praxis but one that involves mass mobilization for action. The cohesiveness of tribal society, the social capital and the identification of the ‘common adversary’ to a certain extent makes the task of mass mobilization easier but not without its challenges. We are seeing a surge of such movements in the North East primarily directed against large development projects in the form of dams and mining or in the case of Manipur, against enforced exclusion and marginalization by the state. The state has however by and large ignored such movements. The task remains for a tribe centric anti oppressive approach to sharpen these social movements through a process of not just mobilization and policy advocacy but also strengthening such movements through action oriented research. A combination of these three processes will enhance the effectiveness of social action.

Strengthening Traditional Institutions
The coming of the State Administration and the office of the Deputy Collector have diluted traditional systems of governance; subsequently the district administration has taken over some of the major roles of such institutions, primarily those linked to ‘development’. These ‘planned development’ programmes have however led to certain sections within the tribes or certain tribes usurping all the benefits of major development programmes. For the vast majority benefits remain elusive or is nonexistent. The disproportionate accumulation of benefits has given rise to divisions within tribes and inter and intra tribe conflict over resources; such can be the latent consequence of even well intentioned Social policy.

Avoiding such unwanted consequences would require revitalizing and strengthening traditional institutions which formerly functioned as a means of social control in addition to daily governance activities. This would involve not just recognition of such institution but also devolution of real powers and capacity building of traditional heads and members of such institutions with regard to development programmes. Such measures will enable these institutions to tap into the inherent social capital of people and consequently coordinated action will ensure equitable distribution of the benefits of various development programmes. Lopsided accumulation of resources by certain individual or tribes can be countered through such action. From a tribe centric anti oppressive social work perspective revitalization of traditional institutions is an important tool against brazen individualization which reflects the dawn of capitalism in formerly egalitarian societies. They must not only be strengthened but also be genuinely democratic and representative of all sections of society.

The above mentioned areas for indigenizing tribe centric anti oppressive social work practice are primarily drawn from the context of the tribes in Manipur but such experiences are increasingly being shared by other tribal groups in the North East. In no way are they comprehensive nor are they devoid of contestations since exclusion, discrimination and oppression are dynamic processes; hence, the constant need for renewed theorization, practice formulation and action measures. The centrality of our argument has been that general orientation of such a practice framework should be towards the realisation of genuine self determination for tribes; secondly, action research should be oriented, drawn and conceptualized from lived experiential reality and lastly a thrust for the strengthening of traditional institutions for building an egalitarian society. Only then would professional social work practice be of any relevance especially in the context of the North East, traditional social work will only enhance the already mushrooming NGO industry.

References