Hasan Shafie

Deceptive Distinctions and Dissonance: On Connotations of the Term Indigenous



Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2007

by

This paper is my personal reflection on the processes by which we are giving form and meaning to the word ‘ indigenous’ or adibashi , and set it in motion to work. The Bangla term upajati (tribal) has recently been replaced by another term adibashi (indigenous) and gained wide acceptance in the academia at all levels as well as among the indigenous intellectuals, elites and leaders. This terminological shift took place in the international sphere while of late being followed in Bangladesh. The reason behind was to transcend the negative connotations or cognitive dissonances implied by the former use of the term upajati (tribal). My compliance would definitely compliment this reasoning for a transcendental term along with appropriate deference for the concerned group of people and the culture the bear. Being the proponent of cultural relativity, we are morally and ethically committed to approach each ethnic or cultural identity, regardless of their demographic positioning, separately as endowed with an inventory of human and cultural resources. Have we achieved the objective of seeking an appropriate reference term based on equity and respect by the use of the term indigenous or adibashi ? Is it independent of stereotyping and prejudgments? Does it carry different connotations than that of the replaced one? We perhaps still need to continue searching for better options. Here I would try to develop reasoning to reprove the present use and meaning of the word ‘ indigenous ’ since it is also enforcing separations between social categories, carrying inevitably a sense of hierarchy (Abu-Lughod), inflicting asymmetry in inter-ethnic communication, based on a set of operations designed strategically to establish difference and discrimination.

The group of people we define as indigenous or adibashi is a representational human category based on some perceived common properties shared by its members. Several points follow from this statement: what common properties are shared? Why such perceived commonness is given a separate identity? Why an identity needs to be different from other identities? Why and how do we do such categorizations? How an identity becomes more or less appealing to its members who share commonness in belonging? Why and how these constructed categories are contested? It would definitely be an ambitious attempt for me to provide answers to all those crucial questions. I would not dare to do that in this short article. But I would consider my present endeavor partially, if not completely, successful, if this paper can develop adequate rationale for raising such questions.

Ethnic, cultural, indigenous and other forms of ‘social categories … are normative’, as Michael Root (2000) states, ‘we divide ourselves not by discovering our differences but by requiring ourselves to be different’. Such requirements of maintaining distinctions– can be seen as politics of identities and of differences– are mostly presumptive based upon imagined similarities as well as differences and eventually crystallized into comparable bounded entities i.e. social categories. All human categorizations are derived from human experience and imagination. How do we make meaningful sense of these human categories? Indigenous group, for instance, as a category of people can only produce meaningful sense through its capacity to correspond to other categories of people. Therefore, a group of people can be defined as indigenous only if there are some other people who are not indigenous. Hence, the existence of indigenous category is relational and it can only produce meaningful sense through its relation to the other implied category known as non-indigenous. Consequently, the term indigenous is not independent of the term non-indigenous . Whenever, we say adibashi in Bangladesh we do recognize, though implicitly, the existence of the non-adibashi (mostly Bangali ) people. Similarly, the term minority or shongkha-loghu group is always complemented by the term majority or shongkha-guru (the Bangali people) in Bangladesh. Explicit discussion on any human category always results in implicit representation of other consequent categories.

The making of categorization is intrinsically social and is constructed in transactions. The principle of classifications is deeply woven into the social fabric and has, however, a dual nature: it is created internally (self-ascription) and also imposed by others (ascription by others) from outside or externally (F. Barth 1969). Ethnic labeling and categories, are to be found and negotiated at boundaries, are always in the making, not a constant state of being, and at the same time, it is negotiable in the sense that it requires agreements and disagreements between actors or groups. Multiplicity of interests and, the pragmatics of cooperation and competition mediate the negotiation between human categories and transform them for redefinition. Therefore, categorization and identity is always open, complex, unfinished game, always under construction and formed under specific discourses while minor difference can be magnified or radical differences may be ignored and denied.

Cultural similarities and differences cannot be accounted objectively by any means. Minor or radical differences are perceived subjectively by actors or groups while aspects of cultural features are regarded as significant since the actors use those features as signals and emblems of differences between categories. Mobilizations of common interest often lead to processes of polarization through forming opposing and contested identities. Relations of competition and symbiosis among ethnic groups in Bangladesh have programmed the software of everyday life through activating contesting categorizations vis-à-vis , for instance, generic cultural entities e.g. adibashi (indigenous) vs. Bangali , religion e.g. Muslim vs. non-Muslim (contextualize locally as Hindu), demographic factors e.g. majority vs. minority, sharing perceived ethnicity e.g. Bangali (self) vs. non- Bangali (other) or ethno-nationalist sense e.g. Bangali (perceived on the sense of belonging to Bangali ethnicity and Bangladeshi nationalism) vs. Pahari (Hill People, or contextually equivalent of adibashi category in CHT, mobilized on the basis of sharing Jhumma nationalist ideology). These identifications and labeling, in terms of perceived common properties of their members, obscured the diversity and complexity in reality or in real life of people. While in much of the earlier studies in Bangladesh and elsewhere, the indigenous groups and associated cultural traditions are represented in overly generalized, often reifying, statistical and homogenous categories. We, however, need to have a precise conceptual underpinning of the term indigenous through clarification on the content that helps to define the term.

The category, ‘indigenous peoples’, itself is a gross simplification of an immense variety of types of social organizations. The ‘indigenous group’ organization, besides their distinct identity and political structure, is not state-based organizations. The non-state indigenous social organizations are characterized or referred to as ‘non-capitalist’ or rather widely used reference is ‘pre-capitalist’. The logical implication of the latter term is unfortunately biased with evolutionary connotations. First, it implies that indigenous type of organizations preceded capitalist social setting. Therefore, following this line of reasoning, such organizations can also be considered as preconditions of capitalism. Thus, the indigenous societies are positioned as to be the primitive form of modern societies following the evolutionary sequences. This conceptualization cannot be justified by the fact that the anti-capitalist resistance by the indigenous people against the incorporation into the world-system may not be explained in terms of economic rationality or comparison, rather the causes are woven into their social fabric and can hardly be made relevant to the logic of capitalistic accumulation of capital. They do resist assimilation because of their emotional investment to their cultural heritage and received tradition in which the ‘self’ is subordinate to their collectivity as well as the members sacrifice their personality for the whole.

Recapturing the historical narratives and reevaluating the exclusionary representations of the tribal or indigenous people, it becomes almost self-evident that the official historical records described them in terms of barbarism and against extensive uprooting and displacement. The indigenous people have been insistent in promoting aspects of their identity that corresponds to collectivity and self-determination. This was further confirmed by UN declaration on indigenous people that they, "… have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." The word ‘indigenous’ projects an image that they are being deprived of their human rights and fundamental freedom, resulting, inter alia , in their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies. The world over the situation of the indigenous people confirms the correlation between being indigenous and becoming poor due to ethnic stigmatization, economic inequality, enduring discrimination, lack of education, little access to land, a low degree of market integration, labor power remains underused, and lack of employment in the vibrant off-farm rural sector. Moreover, their attempt to embrace traditional values can hardly be made relevant in the context ofglobal capitalist economy and the power of expanding nation-states. These are general scenario and image of the world over indigenous people.

In addition to such representations, in Bangladesh, indigenous identification is more or less equated with so called racial categorization denoting ‘ them’ , based on physical or phenotypic characteristics. Most of the indigenous groups in Bangladesh share the so called Mongolian physical features while the rest of them belong to Dravidian category. The term adibashi , in general, is contextualized with some forms of physical differences from the overwhelming majority Bangali people. Differences in physical attributes enter into the realm of social and political processes whereby adibashi-Bangali differences are translated into pseudo-biological and socio-cultural deficits. However, the performative context of adibashi-Bangali relations can be explained in terms of ethnicity-based principles of classification and organisation.

Culture and identity politics have become very highly contested issues in recent decades while the indigenous group identities are particularly politicized and contested. The use of the term ‘indigenous’ or adibashi refers to people who ‘originated in a (specified) place’ and have been there for several generations. The image of the indigenous people today denotes displacement from their originating place as well as loss of some or all of their political control and possession of their economic resources. It is inherently troublesome to draw a line between the ‘indigenous’ and the ‘usurped’. Again, some territories remained contended for centuries even among indigenous groups. For example, the territory of Chittagong Hill Tracts remained contended in its possession between the rulers of Tripura and Arakan and frequently changed hands according to the earliest known history. In this territory, peoples have crossed and recrossed, conquered and reconquered each other for centuries. Besides, the recent Bangali intrusion in CHTs, the rest of the present population (those who are known as adibashi ) in that territory is composed of both ‘indigenous’ and ‘usurped’, while some of them may be found several times in each role. Moreover, some of the sedentary groups of today were nomads in earlier times. Who is indigenous cannot be settled by conceptual parsing or factual history. Therefore, the idea of indigenousness is conceptually inaccurate, often factually wrong and sometimes highly politicized owing to the complexity and obscurity of historical data.

‘To be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized need of the human soul’ (Simone Weil 1952). Therefore, the claims of blood, soil and belongingness are potential emotional sources of mass mobilization followed by constructive or catastrophic consequences for the commons. In quest of strengthening the collective sense of uniqueness followed by endowing imagined shape and name, encountering the threat of the larger world political and socio-economic transformations, perhaps constitutes a very fertile field for social science to ‘explain how and why we so divide ourselves’. Praxis of such analysis is scrutinized under prismatic politico-economic conditions based upon for/against the interest of the ‘new corporate global forms’ and eventually formed a continuum illustrating two extremes: multiculturism–terrorism continuum. Recent world history has become hysterias as we have seen tragic consequences induced by contesting relations between the processes of restoring rooted traditions and global unifying processes. The laws of nature, as Michael Root stated, do make human categories real or sensitize differences but we do and now we need to decide whether we ought to. Since, (Thornton Wilder) “humanity gradually realizes that what is common to man is more important than what is different…."

This Article has been viewed 884 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)
» left by Smrakib
from Dhaka 2 years 304 days ago.
Thanks for depicting nice issue.

I also belive that Indigenousness is an identity socially constructed, shaped and lived in the politicized context of contemporary imperialism and colonialism. The communities, clans, nations and tribes we call Indigenous peoples are just that: Indigenous to the lands they inhabit, in contrast to and in contention with the colonial societies and states that have spread out from Europe and other centres of empire.
» left by Christofer French
 1 year 102 days ago.
70 fans.
I think indegenous arose as just a way to say, OK, there was a time, before people started roaming around that these people were here. OK, but you know what? People have been roaming around for millenia. The Irish go back a long way. Everybody is a former "roamer" in Ireland, because it is an island. Point being made. Everybody's right. Yes, Colonialism has a large part.

But just go back a little bit from Colonialism and you have war, incursions, tribal emigrations, etc. People cry about the Sioux and the life on the plains with the horse. Well, the horse was new to the plains just 100 years before, and the Sioux, the most aggressive of Indian tribes, pushed all their brothers around and became the "great people". Well, ask the other tribes about that. You see, it's kind of how far back do you want to go? I am sure the modern Bengalese once pushed out a more indigenous people. It goes back far. When do you want to stop?
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.