Read the paragraph below and answer the following question.
The famous isolation versus integration debate of the 1940s built upon this standard picture of tribal societies as isolated wholes. The isolationist side argued that tribals needed protection from traders, moneylenders and Hindu and Christian missionaries all of whom were intent on reducing tribals to detribalised landless labour. The integrationists, on the other hand, argued that tribals were merely backward Hindus, and their problems had to be addressed within the same framework as that of backward classes. This opposition dominated the Constituent Assembly debates, which were finally settled along the lines of a compromise which advocated welfare schemes that would enable controlled integration. The subsequent schemes for tribal development - five year plans, tribal sub-plans, tribal welfare blocks, special multipurpose area schemes all continue with this mode of thinking. But the basic issue here is that the integration of tribes has neglected their own needs or desires; integration has been on the terms of the mainstream society and for its own benefit. The tribal societies have had their lands, forests taken away and their communities shattered in the name of development.
Identify positive impact of interactional process with mainstream society:
Answer & explanation
Correct answer: option 1
The correct answer is Option (1) → Statehood of Jharkhand and Chattisgarh
Option (1) Statehood of Jharkhand and Chattisgarh — Correct. Tribal identities today are formed by their interaction with the mainstream, and since this interaction has mostly been on unfavourable terms, many of these identities grew round resistance and struggle. The achievement of statehood for Jharkhand and Chattisgarh after a long struggle is the success that is called the positive impact of this process, though continuing problems moderate it.
Note: This passage is taken from the section ‘Mainstream Attitudes towards Tribes’ of the chapter ‘Social Institutions: Continuity and Change’, which was there in the pre-rationalised NCERT, which NTA followed in 2023. This portion has been deleted from the NCERT book (2025-26), though the chapter is still there, and this question is answered from its section ‘Tribal Identity Today’. Five questions came from this one paragraph, so a careful reading of every paragraph of the chapter pays off.
NCERT (2025-26): “Tribal Identity Today … Forced incorporation of tribal communities into mainstream processes has had its impact on tribal culture and society as much as its economy. Tribal identities today are formed by this interactional process rather than any primordial (orginal, ancient) characteristics peculiar to tribes. Because the interaction with the mainstream has generally been on terms unfavourable to the tribal communities, many tribal identities today are centred on ideas of resistance and opposition to the overwhelming force of the non-tribal world.…” “…The positive impact of successes – such as the achievement of statehood for Jharkhand and Chattisgarh after a long struggle – is moderated by continuing problems. Many of the states of the NorthEast, for example, have been living for decades under special laws that limit the civil liberties of citizens.…” “National Development versus Tribal Development … The imperatives of ‘development’ have governed attitudes towards tribes and shaped the policies of the state. National development, particularly in the Nehruvian era, involved the building of large dams, factories and mines. Because the tribal areas were located in mineral rich and forest covered parts of the country, tribals have paid a disproportionate price for the development of the rest of Indian society. This kind of development has benefited the mainstream at the expense of the tribes.…” NCERT (Pre-rationalised): “…The famous isolation versus integration debate of the 1940s built upon this standard picture of tribal societies as isolated wholes. The isolationist side argued that tribals needed protection from traders, moneylenders and Hindu and Christian missionaries, all of whom were intent on reducing tribals to detribalised landless labour. The integrationists, on the other hand, argued that tribals were merely backward Hindus, and their problems had to be addressed within the same framework as that of other backward classes. This opposition dominated the Constituent Assembly debates, which were finally settled along the lines of a compromise which advocated welfare schemes that would enable controlled integration. The subsequent schemes for tribal development – five year plans, tribal sub-plans, tribal welfare blocks, special multipurpose area schemes all continue with this mode of thinking. But the basic issue here is that the integration of tribes has neglected their own needs or desires; integration has been on the terms of the mainstream society and for its own benefit. The tribal societies have had their lands, forests taken away and their communities shattered in the name of development.” |