Caste Among Tribes: Tribal Contrasts in the Shadow of the City

From the desk of Vitasta Raina
Time: Reflections
Notes from the field.

 

Katkari woman outside her house at Chowk Katkariwadi

Getting Acquainted

In the summer of 2022, I rode my bike on the old Mumbai-Pune highway from Pune to Chowk. It took me about half an hour to reach Chowk from the end of the Bhor Ghat, and would take me another two hours to reach Mumbai from Chowk. At approximately the geographical center of the highway between Pune and Mumbai, at the base of the Tooth Mountain and adjacent to Morbe Dam, lies the village of Chowk. Chowk was my case study village for my PhD studies on ‘Rural Housing Schemes in Peri-urban Villages’. It had the right conditions for my study, a village with active rural housing schemes, in close vicinity of real estate townships of the likes of Hiranandani and Godrej, and with a railway station that was getting expanded to join the Mumbai sub-urban rail network.

 

As I spent time in Chowk conducting surveys and interviewing residents from all walks of life, I was simultaneously acquainted with the concepts of spatial segregation, dispossession, and place identity. My study area comprised 3 revenue villages- Chowk, Nanivali, and Hatnoli, and their associated wadis. As was evidenced by the names of these wadis such as Chowk Katkariwadi, Nanivali Thakurwadi, or Hatnoli Bodhwada, these hamlets were historically established on the lines of caste and tribe-based segregation, a traditional pattern of villages in India based on Hindu Cosmology. For instance, the main village of Chowk is physically separated from Chowk Navin Vasahat by the Mumbai-Pune Highway. Navin Vasahat was historically settled as the Dalit hamlet for the main village of Chowk, and then the Katkariwadi came up sometime later towards the edge of this settlement. While the socio-spatial divisions between Chowk and Navin-Vasahat no longer exist as Navin Vasahat was integrated with the main village sometime in the early 80s due to an increase in built density in the main village of Chowk, there is still a contrast that can be found between the main village area of Navin Vasahat and its more impoverished Katkariwadi.

They are ‘Open’ Adivasis

Within my study area covering Chowk, Nanivali, and Hatnoli, as per the data received from the panchayat office, the total tribal population is approximately 27% of the total population. The dominant tribal population comprises Katkari and Thakur tribes, with a few Koli tribal families though their numbers are not substantial. As per my estimation, the total population of Katkari tribals is 907 persons, while the total number of Thakur tribals is 678 persons (From data received by Chowk Group Gram Panchayat).

 

While most of the Adivasi communities I came across and interacted with, irrespective of their tribes, were similar in terms of their educational and occupational profile, there was a contrast between the perceptions regarding the two communities that the other villagers shared with me. Several villagers I interviewed as well as the Gram Panchayat officials themselves, talked about the Thakur tribe that resided in more hilly terrain with some respectability, claiming that they are cleaner, keep their surroundings tidy, and generally have more wherewithal. By contrast, the Katkaris who live on the edge of Main village areas are viewed as illiterate folk who are prone to drinking and have little ambition to improve their circumstances. Between the tribal community themselves, one respondent of the Thakur community differentiated the Thakurs from the Katkaris referring to the latter as “Open Adivasi”. 

Caste among Tribes

The Maharashtra State Gazette 1964 gives a description of the Thakur and the Katkari tribal populations. 

The text while describing the Thakur tribe says,

“The Thakurs are a small squat tribe, certainly better looking than their neighbours, the Katkaris…Thakurs are known to be truthful, honest, teachable, and harmless. They neither borrow nor steal, almost never appear either in civil and criminal courts, and are neat and cleanly in their ways. They keep their houses thoroughly clean…they do not take to evil courses.” 

The same text when describing the Katkaris reads,

“The women are tall and slim and those living in the interior singularly dirty and unkempt. They rank among the very lowest tribes; their touch being thought to defile. They eat every sort of flesh, except the cow and the brown-faced monkey. They never work, unless forced by want…a drunken lot given to thieving.” 

Literature provides an idea for this sharp historical contrast in the attitudes towards both tribes. The Katkaris who were a nomadic, forest-dwelling people, can trace their history of social exclusion and prejudice back to the colonial period, where they were criminalized under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 by the British. Post-independence, they were included among a list of other tribes under the category of ‘Primitive Tribal Group’ (now replaced with Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group). Buckles and Khedkar in their 2013 study of Tribal Land Rights in Khalapur taluka argue that the legacy of being a criminal tribe and the label of primitive still defines the Katkari identity today.

Srivastava’s (2010) research further describes the assimilation of tribal groups into the caste system, which also played a role in shaping social attitudes. He argues that tribal groups entered the traditional occupational structure of villages by taking up different professions that were either considered ‘caste-free’ or lowly occupations. In the case of the Thakurs, who are primarily agriculturalists, they adopted Hindu caste names and incorporated the rituals observed by high-caste Hindus. The Katkaris on the other hand, fell into a lower caste role in villages with their occupations of catechu (kath) making, charcoal making, and agricultural labourers. Further, non-tribals had a visceral reaction to the Katkari food habits of eating rodents.

Mural outside a Katkari House at Varosawadi (Katkariwadi)

However, the question of whether there is a ‘caste among tribes’ is challenging. Even if we were to separate the entanglement of tribal populations from Hinduism, tribal populations themselves separated into different endogamous groups. The Thakur tribals for instance are divided into two endogamous sections, the Ma and Ka. According to one interpretation ‘Ma’ means bigger or higher, and ‘Ka’ means smaller or lower. Ma-Thakurs consider themselves to be socially superior to Ka-Thakurs. These two groups are further subdivided into several exogamous Kulas. The Katkaris as well are divided into the Sons or Maratha, and the Dhors, and the two divisions do not intermarry or interdine. Out of these, Son Katkaris regard themselves to be superior to the Dhors since they do not consume beef.

Conclusion: Reflections from the Field

The fieldwork in Chowk village revealed a landscape of both shared tribal identities, and yet persistent social boundaries. While the Katkaris and Thakurs live in proximity, their experiences diverge sharply. These differences are deeply shaped by historical marginalizations, and compel us to think about tribal identities not as homogenous concepts, but rather as distinct lived realities. Literature and my own work in the field, details out the historical discrimination against the Katkaris, the apathy of the governance machinery towards them, and their continued mutlidimensional poverty despite being in peri-urban geographies.

References

1. Government of Maharashtra. 1964. Maharashtra State Gazetteers Kolaba District. Maharashtra State.
2. Khedkar, Daniel Buckles and Rajeev. 2013. Fighting Eviction: Tribal Land Rights and Research-in-Action. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India Pvt. Ltd.
3. Srivastava, Vinay Kumar. 2010. Socio-economic Characteristics of Tribal Communities That Call Themselves Hindu. Religious and Development Research Programme. Working Paper Series Vol 1, No 3, New Delhi: Indian Institute of Dalit Studies.
4. Waghmore, Dr. Suryakant. 2014. Socio-Economic Issues Facing Katkaris A report prepared for Maharashtra Development Board. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences.