JTICI Vol.3,Issue 1, No.4, September 2015, pp.37 to 45
Gondwana Movement in Post-colonial India: Exploring paradigms of assertion, self-determination and statehood
Abstract
There exists inseparable linkage between community, territory and state. Specifically among indigenous communities where land and culture are ontologically connected. People seek separate statehood as it provides them a political identity and constitutionally documented institutional space. After disintegration of Central Province and Berar and reorganization of states, the largest tribal group of central India- Gonds are now scattered across Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Telangana. The historical territory of ‘Gondwana’ is ancestral territory of Gonds and was earlier ruled by Gond kingdoms of Kherla, Garha, Chanda, Devgarh etc. Self-determination is a key element in the Adivasi ideology, and cannot be complete without constitutional control over ‘territory’. Gondwana movement represents aspirations of 1.13 crore Gonds living in central India, and emerges as a substantial mechanism for self-determination. Over the years, failure of state to ensure basic rights of ‘Jal, Jangal, Jameen’and imposition of religion, language and culture of dominant Hindu communities has diffused Gond identity, creating a situation of ‘identity-crisis’. The paper seeks to trace movement’s cultural, reformist and separatist elements from 1940s until now and explicate how cultural and reformist initiatives of community has subsequently paved way for a strong political movement.
Akash K Prasad, is currently working as a research associate at Council for Social development, Hyderabad
Introduction
While addressing the constituent assembly, Jaipal Singh Munda had said,
“The history of the Indus Valley civilization….shows quite clearly that it is the new comers- most of you here are intruders as far as I am concerned- it is the new comers who have driven away my people from the Indus Valley to the jungle vastness… The whole history of my people is one of continuous exploitation and dispossession by the non-aboriginals of India punctuated by rebellion and disorder…”
Munda’s remarks aptly fits into the narrative of Gonds of central India, specifically when new studies claim Gonds to have been decedents of Indus civilization. Land, forests and water are not merely means of livelihood for adivasi communities but also embody and construct their socio-cultural environment. People or the traditional communities (like Gonds) are ontologically connected to their land. …it forms part of their lived realities. Thus, any alteration in land/territory is clearly reflected in their culture. History of a community or civilization cannot be understood separately from land, as they provide meaning to each other. The dilution of Gond identity and culture thus predominantly is result of bifurcation of Gondwana region during British rule and then during creation of ‘India’. The movement towards autonomy, has become even more relevant from 1990s with the introduction of privatization, liberalization and globalization of the economy.
The places of cultural and historical importance, are now being appropriated and captured by dominant community culture and institutions creating a rupture between land-culture-adivasi relationships. Moreover, territorial division has also affected the community solidarity based on Gondi Punem (Gond’s social system), belief system and new demarcations of states have brought/imposed new linguistics identities on them, turning them into a ‘minority’ in their native ancestral land. In this context, the slogan ‘Jal, Jangal, Jameen’ sums up whole essence of Adivasi autonomy in three words.
With the help of primary and secondary sources, the paper tries to examine various stages and transformations of the movement. As we move further, the interconnection between autonomy movement and cultural movement is elaborated through the example of Gond Mahasabha and its activities. We also see how Gonds, one of the only tribes in central India to have established kingdoms and accomplished self-rule, political-social-economic prosperity- finds themselves disintegrated and marginalized after its incorporation into Indian state. At latter part of the paper, Jharkhand movement and Gondwana movement have been compared to reveal explanations for its ‘success/failures’. And at last, some contemporary issues of the movement are discussed.
‘Gondwana movement’ of early 20 th century that subsequently fueled demand for a separate Gondwana state in central India is often overlooked in discussions on Tribal Autonomy movements. Probably because it is regarded as a political failure in independent India, moreover it’s cultural & reformist nature. Xaxa has pointed out ‘Jharkhand movement’ as the only autonomy movement worth its name in mainland India. Similarly other works on tribal autonomy movements have mainly emphasized on separatist demand of Jharkhand. K S Singh has written in details about Gond movements in central India, however is confined to its social-reformist nature and has not drawn much attention to its demand for political autonomy. In this paper, Gondwana Movement does not imply a single mass movement, rather incorporates many small regional struggles as well as larger struggles towards Gond’s socio-political objectives. The movement can be categorized into two time periods- first wave of Gondwana movement began as early as 1916 and was entirely socio-cultural and reformist in nature, however soon transformed into a political movement. The second wave began during 1990s (with the formation of Gondwana Gantantra Party) and has incorporated ‘political ambitions’ along with cultural, social, economic objectives.
While discussing the question of tribal autonomy, it is equally important to engage with the definition of term ‘tribe’ itself. According to Omvedt, ‘sociologists would suggest that the term “ethnic group” or “ethnicity” is more accurate to apply to the people concerned. But why not consider what it would mean if we said that communities like Santhals, Bhils etc. are in fact proto-nations or nationalities in the same sense in which Tamils, Bengalis, Gujratis, etc, can be called “nationalities”? They also have a history- one that can be traced not only by oral tradition, but in written records also. Similarly, identification of ‘Gonds’ as proto-nations or nationalities would bring a new dimension to the ‘demand of a separate state’, and these characteristics of ‘nationalities’ would be an added rationale to the demand. Xaxa as well supports the argument and writes ‘….tribes besides being a type of society also constitute a society as such. This means that the terms of references or description in tribal studies should not be caste, peasant, or social heterogeneity, but rather groups or communities, such as regional communities…A tribe is a whole society like any other society, with their own language, territory, culture, customs, and so on.”
Whose territory ‘is’ Gondwana?
‘The people who are called Gonds today are spread over a vast region, speak several languages and dialects and even display cultural differences. On the one hand are the Marias living in Bastar, while on the other are the Baigas of Mandla, the Chhattisgarhi speaking peasants of Sagar, Damoh and Shahdol districts, and the people residing west of the Satpuras and Deccan Plateau of the south. They are all different from each other, yet they call themselves Gonds.’ According to The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act 1976, the Gonds have more than fifty groups in Maharashtra itself, an equal number of groups is recorded among Gonds of Madhya Pradesh. According to 2011 census, Gonds total population is 1,13,44,629 and has a share of 13.45% of the total schedule tribe population of India. So far as the percentage of Gonds to the total scheduled tribes population of states is concerned. Madhya Pradesh [including (now) Chhattisgarh] shows the highest percentage (43.69%), followed by Maharashtra (19.47%), Odisha (9.97%), Karnataka (6.47%), Andhra Pradesh (5.04%), and Bihar (1.57%).
Gonds have been conjectured to be the aborigines of Hindustan, are one of the largest tribal group in the country, and an important ethnic group who inhabit the central regions of India known as Gondwana. They founded a number of states, graphically described in the mediaeval chronicles, and their political authority survived in a number of the Gond zamindaries until recently, which gave them a measure of social dominance over other communities. The disempowerment of Gond kingdoms and dilution of their culture was result of the appropriation and seizer of power by groups and communities that came from the outside.
One can find various versions of Gondwana’s history. E.g. in, who were the original inhabitants of Gondwana region? Archana Prasad argues, the proposition that tribals were the inhabitants of forested areas originally and that their practices were of ancient origins is not true. The marginalization of Gonds into forest areas was the result of two stage process: Colonization of land by caste Hindus during Maratha rule and their sedentarization into forests by the British land settlements on the other. On the other hand B H Mehta states, the area politically known as Gondwana is not the name of the total region inhabited by the Gonds. The name Gondwana is said to have been used by the Afghans in eleventh or twelfth centuries. In contrary to the above arguments, Gondi scholar Dr. Kangali says, “The territory known as Hindustan today was called Gondwana earlier and at that time no body lived in the region except ancient settlers/pupils of Gond Kingdoms.” Similarly, Gond Mahasabha claims that Gonds are the aborigines of this area. After coming to India the Aryans captured their land, made them slave and superimposed their cultural practices on them. The absence of archeological evidence as well as written history makes it difficult for Gonds to claim their status as original inhabitants of the region. But, recent studies and undergoing research provides a new theory that states, ‘Gonds might have migrated from Indus Valley. Dr. Motiravan Kangali claims to have deciphered Indus script using Gondi. Recently, a set of 19 pictographs from a cave in Hampi were deciphered using root morphemes of Gondi language, considered by many eminent linguists as a proto-Dravidian language. Eleven of the Hampi pictographs resemble those of the civilization, according to Dr. K.M. Metry, Head and Dean, Social Sciences, Kannada University, Hampi.’
‘The early history of the Gond Rajas is not clear, however the oral legends and stories of the Gond community speak abundantly of their rule in the region…Although British administrator-scholars used archival and archaeological evidence, the oral traditions of the Gonds was always crucial in their construction of the histories. The first recorded history of Gond Kingdoms is seen in medieval writings, 14 th century. However, for example according to Gond legends, a Gond chief, Bhim Ballal Singh, organized the Gonds and established his rule in Sirpur in 870 AD. The legend also names 19 Gond rulers.’ The rejection of oral narratives in History writing is problematic at least in the context of Adivasi communities, which hardly has any recorded source to affirm their history. The ‘integration’ of Gonds into the Hindu fold through manipulation and appropriation of their history has been accomplished due to lack of the same, written history. We also see how ‘in the absence of people’s own history, it is easier for the state to create its myth of sovereignty, nationalism and legitimacy.’
The qualification of being regarded as ‘original inhabitants’ of a territory is difficult to discuss in absolute terms, and can only be done in relative terms. Considering written historical facts (and oral narratives) and distinct viewpoints discussed above, it can be argued that Gonds have been the first inhabitants of Gondwana region (since 870 AD), even if one excludes the recent debate of Gonds migration to central India from Indus valley. Gondi oral literature contains enough evidences of Gonds relation with a large number of places of cultural importance in central India, thereby also marking their legitimate history over it. Mainstream historical writing by outsiders deliberately tries to refute Gonds claims, however taking into account the history and narratives embodied in songs, stories, and folktales- are enough evidence for Gondwana to be regarded as territory of Gonds.
Early Gond Movements
‘Gondwana comprised the kingdoms or chieftaincies under the principality of Garh. The chief kingdoms within Gondwana were Khatola, Magadh, Mandala, Silwani, Deogarh, Kherla and Lanji. They existed under the political domination of the Mughal Empire before the 1730s.’ The Gondwana region was marked as the country of Gonds during the Mughal period. Although the region geographically occupied the centre of the Mughal Empire, it remained politically at the periphery of the empire, for its geographical settings as well as the contested histories of the people. It was ruled by four powerful Gond dynasties for 300 years from the middle of fifteenth century to middle of 18 th century. The four independent Gond kingdoms were, Garha Mandla (1300 AD to 1789 AD), Deogarh (1590AD to 1600AD), Chanda (1200AD to 1751AD), and Kherla (1500 AD to 1600 AD).
Traditionally Gonds were not known for waging militant struggle. The Gond zamindars spearheaded the 1857 rebellion in their region like the zamindars elswhere, but the Gond peasants as a whole were not involved in any movement. However, it was 1940s onward when several Gond resistances and rebellions came in light. These movements were started in order to preserve their traditional land and forest rights against the increasing encroachments eroded. Post independence, the new territorial and political system had further broken down and eroded their rights over resources. According to K. S. Singh, the Gond movements in past had centered around the forest and not particularly about the land. Similarly, even the Bastar rebellion of 1911 or the Bhumkaal was a revolt against the various socio-economic transformations that was being introduced through modern school systems, forest conservatory, settling of Hindu settlers, etc.
But 1940s onward there was a change in the nature of the resistance as well as in the causes. In a short lived insurrection in early 1940s, led by Kurma Bhimu, the Gonds in Adilabad first time articulated and asserted their demand for a separate ‘Gond Raj’. The sporadic resistance instances in the Gond region soon culminated into a more organized movement in late fifties and sixties. This movement represented the sense of insecurities and grievances Gonds were facing due to sudden and arbitrary developments in their region. For instance the launching of the Dandkaranya Development Authority for settling refugees from East Pakistan.
During the same time period in 1951, Rajmohini Devi movement in Surguja district of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) started. It was a reformist movement influenced by Gandhian philosophy and Hindu religious ideas with the aim of propagating Hinduism among tribals and stopping the conversion of tribals to Christianity. A similar movements began in Chapka village of Bastar in 1970, by Baba Bihari Das a Hindu from Ayodhya, who expressed his dislike on the way tribals lived, ate cows, pigs and other animals, worshipped ghosts and indulged in magical practices to harm one another. He had set certain goals for his reformative movement, e.g. propagating devotion to Ram as a cultural hero, eliminate ‘impure’ elements from life of tribals, to give up eating any kind of flesh and drinking wine, to give up worship of any deity except Ram, etc. It influenced Bhatra and Maria tribes majorly, but started to decline only by 1975 when Baba Bihari was arrested under MISA. The commonality one finds in post-colonial reform movements in central India is the promotion as well as rejection of Hinduism by Adivasis. Rajmohini Devi movement was probably the only movement propagating Hinduism that is claimed to have been started by an Adivasi woman. However, in most of the other cases, Hinduism was imposed by certain religious/spiritual leaders, and also by appropriating Gond gods/goddesses, portraying them as Hindu Gonds/Goddesses. This normalization of Hinduism through certain (resembling) concepts and imagery of Gond deities resulted into a false consciousness of a Hindu identity of Adivasis. Especially in case of Lingo/Fadapen/Mahadev, who has been appropriated and most Gond sacred places/caves relating to Lingo have been transformed into Shiv temples (based on resembling imagery and name).
‘The initial discourse on tribal identity was shaped by those who advocated integration of tribals as citizens of a nation state and other who sought their assimilation into the Hindu fold. But identity definition for the tribals in the early post-independence years has been largely a process from without.’ Nationalists writings on Adivasi movements denied them an ‘agency’, in the sense, Adivasi movements against British, are represented as ‘independence movements’ when in fact they have always been about ‘any outsider invasion’, be it Britishers, Hindus or other communities. ‘In the post-independence period, the position of the intelligentsia in general and that of the Indian state in particular with respect to tribes has been one of integrating them into the larger Indian Society. This was intended to enable tribes, in phraseology of citizenship rights, to share in full in the social heritage and life of a civilized society. To this end, tribes, like other sections of the Indian population, were given citizenship rights after India declared itself a sovereign democratic republic.’ This ‘integration’ however, caused much damage than earlier ‘invasions’ of outsiders into Gonds territory. Gondwana movement saw its decline because of given citizenship rights that promised various policies and programs for Adivasi’s welfare. However, ‘If one was to perceive the situation from an Adivasi perspective, there has never been any real state other than their own village and community institutions that has ruled them. The modern Indian state has only minimally made its presence felt in Adivasi areas across the country. In many parts especially the interior areas, it simply does not exist in the lived realities of Adivasi people.’
The socio-cultural movement of Gond Mahasabha: Foundation of the autonomy movement
Due to the rapid decline in Gondi Punem values, thinkers from central India came together and formed Gondwana Mahasabha in 1916, and further organized general assemblies in 1919, 1923 and 1930 in Nainpur, Chhindwara, and Raipur respectively. This was also the period when Gondi literature thrived in the region. Gond Mahasabha was actively engaging in asserting and promoting Gondi culture, at the same time challenging influences of other religions. The activities towards reforms, literature and mobilization of Gonds at that time could be considered as period of ‘Renaissance’ in Gonds history. Highlights of Mahasabhas before independence are as follows:
Assemblies of Gondwana Mahasabha provided foundation for the future movement. First assembly was held at Gondia in 1931, it laid out around 46 social norms, rules and regulations for Gonds, also suggesting them to be alert from the influences of other religions that are using ignorance and innocence of Adivasis for their benefits. In second assembly of 1934, proposals for Gondi religious reforms and community rituals, practices were presented to Parliament council of Indian government. It focused on ‘Gonds solidarity throughout the region’ and argued that Aryans have divided Gonds into many sections and crested differences, thus objective of Mahasabha assemblies was socialization of Gonds from different regions. Mahasabha’s sixth assembly took place in Nainpur in April 1945 and it was reiterated that Gondwana is the ancestral land of Gonds and lack of written historical evidences should not demotivate people, rather efforts should be made to rediscover and rewrite Gonds glorious history. It reminded people of how imposition of Hindu Law in 1935 was vehemently rejected by Mahasabha’s efforts. In assembly of 1945, Mahasabha stated that it is not a political body and government shouldn’t be worried about it, and informed about influences of ‘other religions.’ A prominent question was raised asking- what is going to be the benefit of this independence? Even if India gets independence, Christians will leave, but the colonizers of our culture, traditions, and property – ‘Hindus’ will stay right here and will keep ripping us off.
Beginning of the twentieth century saw increasing adoption of Brahmanical practices and worshipping Hindu gods by Gonds, and was argued that this allowed them to adopt, not only a ‘civilized’ life but also modern form of cultivation. Following this, there was a debate on how the religion of the Adivasis should be classified in the census reports. Verrier Elwin, in this regard argued, ‘the religion of the Indian aboriginal outside Assam should be regarded as a religion of the Hindu family, with a special relation to the exciting, dangerous, catastrophic, Shaivaite type, but as having a distinct existence of its own. For purpose of the Census, all aboriginals should be classed as Hindus by religion but separate returns of their numbers by race should be provided. Elwin’s work on Adivasis of central India, on one hand represents his dedication towards them, presenting him as a champion of Adivasis rights; on the other hand, his passive attitude towards Hindu nationalism and its influence over central Indian Adivasis, makes it difficult to regard him as a champion of Adivasi rights. His views were significant in terms of policy formation, thus categorization of Gonds (and other tribes) as Hindus is a brutal step taken against Adivasis, the price of which is still being paid by them. His proposal that tribes are to be classified as Hindus in Census, has provided Hindu nationalists ample space and opportunities for their political objectives.
Gonds were placed above the Mahars (ex-untouchable caste) in the Hindu social ladder. The educated Gonds saw this development as a threat to their culture and identity. They formed an association called the Gond Mahasabha and opposed the classification of Adivasis as Hindus. Soon this cultural movement turned into a political movement demanding the formation of a separate Gond Raj that was used as a weapon to negotiate their position in politics of post-colonial India. This placement of Gonds above Mahars (Dalits) can be interpreted as a deliberate and mischievous act of Brahmins to create anonymity between Adivasis and Dalits, that can be clearly observed in many Gond villages now (e.g. in parts of North Chhattisgarh) where a conscious caste hierarchy is being practiced; is a result of manipulated Hindu caste system in order to appease tribals in tribal dominated regions for socio-political gains.
Self-determination in Gond community has been much of a social control over the community, rather than a political one. A movement by the name of ‘Gondwana Movement’ developed in Nagpur and Bilaspur districts and slowly got spread over Gondwana region. Some major activities of Mahasabha were e.g. – prohibition of drinking alcohol and spendthrift habits, to follow customary law, maintain orderliness to unite the Gond society and to protect the Gondwana culture etc. It worked on four areas- Executive, judiciary, finance and organization. Mahasabha raised questions pertaining to their identity, and asked, if they are Hindus, then why is their god not worshipped and their festivals not observed by the Hindus? Mahasabha’s financial body started a saving programme through Gondwana Bank and was at first established at Ratanpur in Bilaspur district. Bank encouraged people for saving money in their bank accounts, and just within one year they collected rupees 19 lakhs in the first year from Bilaspur district. Most of the tribal members of the bank belonged to Gond community.
Transition from Renaissance to ‘aspiration for State’: Not merely a social reformism
Autonomy movements are an expression of the larger articulation of identity by tribals. As Xaxa points out that Gond’s demand for separate state in 1950s failed to become organized movement and the only autonomy movement worth its name in mainland India has been the movement for the separate state of Jharkhand. Gondwana movement has found little space in the discussions around autonomy movements of tribals, however an analysis of post-independent India portraits a different story altogether where Gond movements can be understood as not merely a social and reformist movements (K S Singh 1982, Pandey 2014) but movement for ‘autonomy’. Broadly the Gondwana movement cannot be categorized as socio-cultural, political, religious or reformists; since these categorization are itself problematic as one subsumes and overlaps the other.
For the preservation of their religious and cultural identity, Gonds formed different social and political organizations, viz. Gondwana Maha Sangh, Gondwana Maha Sabha, Gondwana Mahila Mandal, Gondwana Krishak Sangharsh Samiti, Gondwana Mukti Morcha, and Gondwana Mukti Sena. This organizational network aimed at uniting all the Gonds under the name of Gondwana, and challenging the imposition of Hindu culture and religion. The sole motif of the movement that was retaining ‘Gond identity’ can also be seen as ‘an explanation that may lie in the political aspirations for the establishment of an ethnic nationalism, or proto-nationalism, where a conscious elite among community promote a search for an expanded identity, without however contradicting the larger nationalism.’ One of the earliest political movement among Gonds was started by Gond Raja of Chanda called Veedikar Gond Samaj Seva Samiti, the movement reached its zenith in 1946. The professed aim of this movement was to unite as many as forty-one categories of tribal groups comprising the Gond, Bhil, Kolam, Baiga, and Khond as well as the Pardhans; in short all those aboriginals (mul-niwasi) who follow the dharma commonly practiced and the Dev worshipped by Gonds.
Memories of state formation inspired the demand for a separate Gond state after independence which has, however, never been spelt out and sustained by an organized movement. Kurma Bhimu demanded a Gond Raj for his own region in 1941. In a memorandum submitted before the States Reorganization Commission, on 9 May 1963, the Gond leaders- such as, the tribal minister, Raja Naresh Singh- demanded the formation of separate state for Adivasis to be carved out of the tribal areas of Chhattisgarh and the contiguous districts of Rewa region and Vidarbh. Similarly, Narain Singh Uikey, President of the Gondwana Adivasi Seva Mandal, reiterated demand for formation of a Gondwana State, consisting of Gond and tribal regions of Chhattisgarh and the contiguous districts of Vidarbha in Maharashtra, to protect them against exploitation.
A lower strata movement led by Hira Singh developed in the late 1950s. Durg was centre of his activities in 1948, and he founded Adibasi Kalyan Samiti to promote the welfare of the Gond people in their homeland now split between Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. He gave himself the name Kangla Manjhi in token of his identification with the poor (kangal). He supported the National Congress and its candidates during the elections, affirmed his faith in democracy, employed national symbols (Bharat Mata) and called upon the people to participate enthusiastically in national celebrations (such as, independence day and republic day) at all levels from Durg to Delhi. At the local level, Manjhi set up the Manjhi Sarkar, which did not function in direct opposition to the state or district administration. It was a parallel but invisible government. Manjhi reiterated demand for formation of Gondwana state and employment for the tribals and founded the Bharatiya Gondwana Sangh in August, 1959 to call upon tribals to avail themselves of the facilities of education and employment offered by the government, promoted social reforms, constructed religious shrines and built up their unity. He later declared formation of Gondwana Raj, which would solve the problems of the forty lakh tribals in India. He acquired a considerable following and mobilized as many as 100,000 tribals in the region. Manjhi and some of his followers were taken into custody for their activities and later only were acquitted in 1962, the movement soon came to an end afterwards.
As government neglected the map and existence of Gondwana area at the time of the reforming the state in 1956. Gond leaders again demanded the formation of the separate state for the tribal regions of Chhattisgarh and the adjoining districts of the Rewa region and Vidarbha in 1963. The corruption of the government officials, exploitation by the contractors and businessmen, unemployment of the tribal youth, land alienation, displacement and partial rehabilitation, failure of government schemes, have created social tension and has led to the idea of forming a separate Gondwana state. Gondwana organization leader, Hira Singh Markam and Kausalya Porte had established good relationship with Naxals and they had given full support to help them achieving their political goal. The movement finally transformed from its social-reformist objectives to an organized political movement, when Gondana Gantantra Party (GGP) and Gondwana Mukti Sena were formed in early 90s by Sri Hira Singh Markam and Kausalya Porte in order to bring social and political development of Gondwana and uplift the tribal people by protecting them against exploitation and by preserving their identity. Later period saw the rise of GGP, starting from its success in Tanakhar assembly seat of Lajghir parliamentary area. They party seems to have gained lot of confidence, and continues to agitate for the fulfillment of justified needs. In 1996 elections, Hira Singh Markam was elected as a candidate of GGP from Janjgir parliamentary constituency and the party scored third position with 56419 votes. In October 1996 re-election and 1998 election, Hira Singh was again elected.
The demand for Gondwana state before 1990s was more of less same in terms of regions it wanted to be included in Gondwana state, i.e. Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Vidarbha, but other Gond dominated regions like Adilabad and Khammam were not mentioned. A territorial community seeks separate statehood in order to be the sole arbiter of its cultural settings, political makings and economic wellbeing of the people and territory, which it claims as ‘homeland’. The demand for separate statehood provides a political identity, and a constitutionally documented institutional space. As pointed out earlier, land is integral to Adivasi communities and they are ontologically connected to it, their culture and tradition including their customary laws embodies these relations and any changes to these aspects irrevocably affects these communities. This embodied relationship of land with Adivasi culture and history, along with ‘ethnic homogeneity’ in the region becomes a significant basis for demand of separate state for Gonds. The above point also goes on to explain how cultural movement and political autonomy are interlinked.
Parallels to Jharkhand Movement
Jharkhand movement has been one of the most prominent tribal autonomy movement that began at the same time as Gondwana movement during 1940s, but finally succeeded in its objectives unlike Gondwana. One of the commonalities between them was that both were Adivasis led movements for political autonomy. Thus, a parallel comparison of these two would help us reveal realities about the success/failures of Gondwana Movement.
1938 to 1947 saw the rise of a militant movement under Adivasi Mahasabha in Chotanagpur region. Jaipal Singh, President of Adivasi Mahasabha supported British war effort and many tribals were recruited in the British army. The movement did not demand merely the formation of a sub-state but complete separation from Bihar. Jharkhand Party rose during 1949 to 1963 after the failure of militant movement of Adivasi Mahasabha. With the demand for separate state becoming stronger, there was a transition from ethnicity to regionalism in the movement. It was also believed that language and not ethnicity should determine the formation of a province. (Singh K S, 1982)
Demand for Gondwana state, on the other hand did not catch much attention in the initial stages due to absence of militant movement like the one in Jharkhand. Moreover, Gondwana movement remained revivalist, reformist in nature within the framework of then political, social conditions. The lack of an organized political front to demand for separate state also led to its failure at later stage, until Gondwana Gantantra Party was formed in 1991. Also, while Jharkhand party emerged as a major party in the Chotanagpur-Santal Paraganas region, Gondwana state demand was scattered in different states and could not consolidate a collective political demand from all regions. Even after the formation of Gondwana Gantantra Party, so far its influences are confined to Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and to some extent in Maharashtra.
After the States Reorganization Commission turned down plea for Jharkhand state, even then the movement continued under different banners (Jharkhand Party, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, All Jharkhand Student Union etc.). In the presence of these political fronts, and so its control over large Adivasi vote bank in the region gave this movement an edge. Besides, one of the emerging national parties BJP became the only non-Jharkhandi party to support the demand, providing it patronage at ‘national’ level. On the other hand, after state reorganization commission dismissed Gondwana state demand, it almost died out because of absence of- firstly, a political front, therefore Gonds could not mobilize themselves on the issue and use vote bank as a catalyst to gain or negotiate political power. Secondly, ‘Gond Rajas and Zamindars used their political power over people to certain extent. The reformists movement started by them, thus also mobilized people in the name of Gondi identity and continuously asserted that they were different from Hindu. However, there was a gradual erosion of the authority of Gond Rajas, also due to the general awareness of the people at large of their rights as free citizens, particularly since India gained independence in 1947. In post-independence period welfare schemes by centre and state government pertaining to improvement of Adivasi were brought in central India, ‘native elites’ among Gonds got political positions with the help of reservation and tokenism. That resulted into slowing down of the demand. Thirdly, movement like Rajmohini Devi in Surguja, Bhagat movment in Bastar and similar other Hindu movements were Hindu nationalist propaganda to assimilate Adivasis into their fold. Gond institutions, gods/goddesses, festivals were appropriated by Hindus through Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram and RSS’s presence in the tribal region. In this way Hinduism was ‘normalized’ into the religious-cultural life of Adivasis.
Finally when Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal were carved out in November 2000, it was a major blow to the Gondwana movement. Demand for Chhattisgarh state was first raised by Indian national congress in 1924 and then in 1955 (NOT a tribal movement). In 1994 Congress ruling Madhya Pradesh assembly tabled a resolution for demanding separate Chhattisgarh state, than in 1998 BJP led Union government drafted the bill and both were unanimously approved by Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha. BJP and Congress both conveniently used it for vote bank and finally in 2000, under NDA government Lok Sabha passed the bill for a separate Chhattisgarh. Creation of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, gives us a clear explanation of how, regardless of not being a ‘people led movement’ but an ‘upper caste’/party led movement succeeded in its political aspirations, and how a non-adivasi separatist demand found space in national political discourse, while almost a century old Gondwana movement hasn’t even been able to be a point of discussion in assemblies.
Post-2000 discourse: Tryst with new political system
Unlike the earlier demand of Gondwana state, that were consolidated and homogenous at least in terms of its objectives and territories they wanted to include, demands in last decade has been fragmented and exists with differences in objectives and absence of consensus on its territorial distribution. According to Gond Scholar Motiravan Kangali, “…the demand was turned down on the plea that Gondwana did not have a language or script to unify it. The argument was unfair, because Madhya Pradesh state also did not have a separate language of its own. He feels that efforts towards universalization of Gondi might help pressing the long-standing demand for a Gondwana state again.” He feels that since a lot of Gond groups are not involved with this demand any more, even if the entire Gondi-speaking area of central India is not included, even if the state is really very small, it will go a long way in ensuring the security of Gondi tribal culture, identity and autonomy.
Along with the initial successes of GGP in the region from its formation throughout 90s. In 2003, three GGP MLAs were elected in Madhya Pradesh vidhan sabha assembly elections and in 2004 Lok Sabha elections the party presented candidates from Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. ‘Rejection of Gondwana state demand was nothing but centers apathy and a deliberate act of dividing Gonds into state boundaries’ says Gondwana Gantantra Party’s Vice-president Gulzaar Singh Markam. He recalls that, ‘Even before the formation of GGP, independence MLAs from Gond community had captured political spaces but either they were controlled by ruling parties or were indifferent of their Gond identity. After formation of GGP, Gonds are gradually gaining momentum on ground level and mobilizing themselves. Moreover, while proposals for Bundelkhand, Chhattisgarh and other separatists’ demands found space in assembly debates, demand for Gondwana state remained untouched and ignored. Central government as well turned down all proposals for formation of Gondwana state on all occasions.’
In Maharashtra, Vasudeo Shah Tekam, state president of Gondwana Ganatantra Party (GGP) argues, “We want the whole of Vidarbha and the whole of Chhattisgarh and Adilabad district from Andhra. In MP, we want the Mahakoshal region, which includes the Sidhi, Umaria, Shahdol, Anuppur, Dindori, Mandla, Balaghat, Sheoni, Chhindwada, Betul, Damoh and Tikamgadh districts.” He says that surveys conducted by the party found 150 to 160 million Gondi speakers in this area. Hira Singh Markam, however states, “This demand was the old agenda of tribal groups, but had to be abandoned in view of the fact that it involves too many states, and could lead to lots of conflict. In fact, demanding Vidarbha or portions of Andhra could lead to conflicts with other language and power groups, which we are not prepared for.” The most recent application sent to the States Reorganization Commission includes 24 districts from the MP state, including the 12 mentioned in the earlier proposal. We feel even if we get this much, it will be a good achievement.” Similarly in Telangana region, a separate state of Gondwana is envisioned (especially after formation of Telangana state) that would comprise areas from Adilabad to Srikakulam, including Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam, East Godavari, West Godavari, Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam. This lack of consensus on Gondwana state demand, has only occurred after years of integration into new linguistic states, as a result Gonds from different states (now) have different imaginations of future of Gondwana state.
In recent years, even though GGP has not been able to win MLAs or MPs, its popularity is increasing in the regional political atmosphere and trying to build political solidarity with other allies. E.g Gulzaar Singh Markam very optimistically talk about Janata Dal (United) support for a separate Gondwana state and Sharad Yadav’s affirmed co-operation for the cause. On the similar lines, National People’s Party has come forward to join hands with regional parties. In this regard, P.A. Sangma attended an event organized by Gondwana Mahasabha in Mandla district of Madhya Pradesh in May, 2013. “After quitting the Nationalist Congress Party to unsuccessfully run for President last year, Mr. Sangma formed the NPP with Arvind Netam, a former Congress leader from Chhattisgarh. Since then, he is in talks with the Gondwana Gantantra Party (GGP), and also the Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (JVM) and Jharkhand Disom Party (JDP).”
In present politico-economic atmosphere of the nation, center’s ignorance towards Gondwana state demand can also be understood in terms of control over natural resources. Gondwana region covers an ample amount of natural resources, providing raw materials for industries, and giving constitutional autonomy over the land to an indigenous tribe would become a huge obstacle for Centre to exploit these resources. Irrespective of all the ‘development’ projects and abundant natural resources in the region, Gonds have not been real beneficiaries and in fact have lost their livelihood sources; moreover they have been sandwiched between the state insurgency and Maoist insurgency.
At present, many organizations are working towards uniting the fragmented Gonds of central India. These are organizations like Gondwana Foundation, Akhil Bhartiya Gondwana Sabha, and Gondwana Student Union etc. The movement has also gained significant popularity on social media like Facebook, Blogs etc. that have acted as a blessing. It has provided Gonds from across India, a common space to interact with each other and work in solidarity. ‘Gondwana Friends’ is one of these Facebook group, having more than 10,000 members, similarly there are more than 10 groups and pages dedicated to Gonds and Gondwana issues. There groups and pages frequently discuss on issue of history, identity, appropriation etc. and it is certainly helping them in bridging gaps between states and also expand the network of socio-political movement.
Conclusion
Gondwana movement so far implies that the demand for political autonomy has been primarily based on ‘ethnicity’ and ‘shared history.’ Moreover, it is also result of (firstly) the colonial exploitation and (now) Indian states’ Hindu Nationalism that posed serious threats to the identity and culture of Gond community. And at the same time, deprived them off from all social, economic and political rights that they once enjoyed. Movements in recent years have gained significant momentum, in the course of ‘identity-crisis’. Also, cultural and reformist movements have played a vital role in shaping political element of the movement.
Unlike Gondwana movement, Jharkhand and Telangana movement were successful in their objectives because they have been confined to one territory. While demand for Gondwana state is still scattered in four states, and lacks the necessary political mobilization and solidarity. Constitutional provisions (article 3 &4) can be easily used to change the political map of the country by the parliament, however it depends on the ruling party and its majority in the house; moreover whether a movement can lobby with the ruling party. Unfortunately, the political dynamics of the two major ruling parties in country is such that tribal politicians from Gond community (native elites) are generally lured to join BJP or INC. Their assimilation into the political sphere dominated by mostly ‘upper castes’ politicians does not give them enough authority or say in party decisions, lately even though many Gond politicians have come to forefront but the absence of identity-consciousness has not awaken demand for Gondwana state from their side. Gond community, having been disintegrated into alien states, along with absence of a radical movement (militant) has had great difficulties in organizing the movement in all states. Along with it, more than 60 years of their division into different states has resulted into linguistic differences, hence integration of Hindi, Marathi, Telugu speaking Gonds seems a bit difficult. There are differences in vision of Gondwana state from different regions, however language has not been an issue so far. It thus becomes quite clear that demand for separate state is not on linguistic basis, but on the basis of ‘ethnicity and culture’.
As discussed earlier, identifying Gond movements as cultural movement is misconception; demand for political autonomy itself seeks cultural and identity protection, and interrelationship between culture and territory explains that autonomy movements and cultural movements cannot be understood in isolated terms, rather are simultaneous and in fact two sides of a coin. To conclude, the damage that reorganization of states in 1956 did to Gonds seems irreparable. Indian state during reorganization tried to abstain from any form of sub nationalism, thus what was convenient and beneficial for a Hindu nationalist nation was implemented in the form of various states. Fifty nine years later after state reorganization, Gonds are still struggling to voice out their demand of self-determination and autonomy that was rightfully supposed to be given during Linguistic state reorganization. There are still many leaders from community holding political positions, from Malankgiri to Vidarbha and Surguja to Adilabad. However, the absence of consciousness about ones ‘ethnic identity’ as a result of assimilation of Gonds into Hindu fold and citizens of Nation-State, finds hurdles in fulfilling its objective of separate state.
References
Have you like this article?
Was this article helpful?
(+7 rating, 4 votes)
Loading...