Introduction

The marginalization of the tribals has taken place not only in terms of geographical space but also in terms of how their history has been marginalized and left to be forgotten. When we read about the early freedom fighters of this country, we hear the names of Mangal Pandey, Rani Lakshmibai, Nana Saheb, Tatya Tope etc. The tribals are never mentioned as freedom fighters. The Indian historians build a narrative around the tribals as primitive beings who were happy by the British rule and never fought against the British. The truth cannot be further away from this narrative, before the Revolt of 1857 which was started by Mangal Pandey, there were innumerable instances of revolt by the tribals but the Indian historians did not deem these revolts to be fit for inclusion in the history of India.

Epistemic Violence on Tribals

I would like to point towards Tilka Manjhi, Birsa Munda, Sido and Kanhu. These are just some of the names that fought against the British. Their struggle for freedom is never found in our history books because it does not fit the narratives introduced by the hegemonic class that the tribals were primitive or backward. To put it bluntly, how could the primitive tribes fight for freedom before the hegemonic class had the idea to fight for their freedom.

Indian history considers the Revolt of 1857 as the first uprising against the British but the tribal history points at uprisings even before that. Tilka Manjhi led a rebellion against the British in 1771. Tilka Manjhi waged war against the British between 1771 and 1774 in which he created a lot of problems for moneylenders and landlords. As a result, the primitive hill tribes in India were the first to revolt against the colonial rulers. In the highlands of Jharkhand, they fought the British authorities. Jabra Pahadia, alias Tilka Manjhi, is the most well-known among them. He pushed the British out of the Ramgarh camp in 1778 with the help of hill tribal chieftains. Tilka Manjhi assassinated East India Company administrator Augustus Cleveland in 1784. Later, a British troop led by Ayarkut was dispatched, killing a huge number of Tribals and arresting Tilka. After tying him to four horses, he was allegedly hauled all the way to Bhagalpur. Tilka Manjhi was alive after being pulled for miles. Tribals claim that his body was drenched in blood. He was hanged from a banyan tree in Bhagalpur on 13th January 1785.

Tilka Manjhi’s revolt was not a one-off in tribal history. On June 30, 1855, roughly 40,000 tribals from 400 villages in Bhognadeeh, Saheb Ganj district, led by Sido, Kanhu, Chand, Bhairav, and their sisters Phulo and Jhano, refused to pay land revenue to the British. "It's past time we threw the British out," Sido stated. "Karo ya Maro [do or die]" and "Angrezon Hamari Maati Chhodo [British, leave our soil]" were among his other slogans. The four brothers were immediately detained by the British. A police officer arrived to arrest the brothers, but he was decapitated by Santhal protestors. The Santhal Pargana government officials were afraid. Every attempt to tamper with the Tribals' traditions and culture, or to take their water, forests, or land, is believed to have resulted in a revolt. The Hool uprising of June 30, 1855, erupted as moneylenders, landlords, and British rulers attempted to seize the Tribals' land. More than 20,000 Santhals, including Sido, Kanhu, Chand, Bhairav, and their sisters Phulo and Jhano, died defending their land, water, and forests in the struggle that followed. Sido and Kanhu like Tilka Manjhi were also hanged from a tree.

These tribal revolts must have shaken up the British because not long after they introduced various measures to control the movement of the Santal tribes. The census operation, enumeration of houses, preparation of land rights records, imposition of land tax, and categorisation of land into various categories were all measures and enactments of various laws in the 1860s and 1870s aimed at imposition of land tax and fixing enhanced rent in order to accumulate surpluses for furthering the British empire's interests in India and the east. Because they were expelled from their ancestral landholdings, most of the Santal tribes were landless agricultural labourers. Through various regulations the British increased the number of immigrants in the Chotanagpur region. These circumstances again led to tribal protests British rule and the dikus (outsiders). The protests were a mix of agrarian, religious and political issues. They were followed by socio-religious or revitalization movements.

To suppress these tribal uprisings in different parts of the country, the British passed the Criminal Tribes Act in 1871.

“The two sets of population had by and large different administrative set-ups. Laws meant for the general population were usually not applicable in the case of groups called tribes. Often, special laws, that is, laws in consonance with the tribal system of administration, were framed for their governance” (Xaxa 2).

Under the umbrella of this act, British could mark the nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes as criminals and keep them under surveillance. These tribes were not allowed to move freely. Because nomadic groups were on the move as cow grazers, food grain transporters, musicians, acrobats, fortune tellers, mat, and basket makers, etc., the British colonial rulers saw them as a threat to the modern state. The colonial state, which viewed itself as carrying out a civilizing mission, believed in a fixed society that made it simpler for the state to manage its citizens. Indeed, the colonial rulers had a tumultuous nomad experience in their own nation. Because of their dread of nomadism, they saw the colony's migratory communities as static. The endeavour to settle these communities not only discouraged nomadism, but also ruthlessly suppressed it.

Through this act, the local government was given the power to declare any tribe as criminals. Also, these tribes could not challenge the validity of this law in any court of Law. So, if a tribe is labelled a criminal tribe, they have nowhere to go to challenge this decision. Also, it gave the local authority to fix a residence for these tribes and the fixing of residences for these nomadic tribes led to the loss of traditional occupation. Many nomadic cultures lost their customary occupation as a result of this process. As a result, some of them had to turn to dacoity. Dacoity was recognised as a collective activity under colonial administration, and communities that committed dacoity in groups were designated as criminal tribes under the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) of 1871. Under the CTA, populations on the move, without occupation, who possessed martial features, and glorified freebooters were labelled as criminals and subjected to constant surveillance. The CTA's execution did, in fact, produce a considerable number of criminals in India. Dacoity was regarded as a hereditary trade by the colonial government.

The British Government looked at these tribes as dangerous criminals from which the society needed protection. People belonging to these tribes were asked to report to the police stations for regular enquiries and failure in doing so would lead to them being put in prison. These provisions were so against these communities that the upper caste used them to oppress them.

“Thus ‘if an innocent Dharala goes about the village with a hukkah in his hand, it is regarded as impertinence and an insult to the patel, who gets him registered under this Act.’ The 'patidars' from whom mostly the Patels come in the Kheda district and the Dharalas are not on good accord, and very often the Patel and his friends simply scheme to put a man on the ' hazri ' in order to satisfy a private grudge” (Kapadia 102).

These people would also become the prime suspects if any crime was committed in the surroundings. The British believed that crime was a hereditary in the members of these tribes.

The criminalization of tribes and other acts to suppress the tribal revolts gave birth to Birsa Munda. Birsa was born in 1875 and the state of tribes in the Chotanagpur region was very frail. They were being suppressed economically and socially by the British Raj. Moreover, they were also disenfranchised from their forest resources by the Indian Forest Act VII of 1882. Birsa encouraged his followers not to plant rice as part of a re-territorializing effort, stating that his powers would generate the harvest instead. This move drew the notice of Raj officials, who, fearing a drop in revenue, ordered Birsa's arrest. Birsa’s active resistance against the British Raj saw him get captured and was sent to prison where his health deteriorated and he died in 1900.

Birsa Munda had been forgotten by the writers of Indian history. Mahasweta Devi’s Aranyer Adhikar showcased the tribal revolution which shook the British Government between 1895 and 1901. Mahasweta Devi's work Aranyer Adhikar sheds insight on the tribal agitation that raged from the mid-nineteenth century to the end of the century. It is a meticulously researched historical novel about the Munda Insurrection of 1899-1900. Mahasweta Devi does not just focus on the facts of the rebellion's history. She investigates the true essence and character of the Munda movement, which was led by Birsa Munda. Through the work of Devi, Indian history was introduced to Birsa Munda. As a result, the country's tribal heritage has mostly been forgotten, but this must not continue. It is imperative that tribal history be included in the history of the Indian subcontinent. As a result, the tribals may no longer be seen as the marginalized 'other,' but as integral members of this society.

Representation of Tribals in Cinema

The representation of tribes or the lack of it has been very problematic at least in the films. The tribals were projected as primitive savages who have no knowledge of the modern concepts in the colonial world. The hegemonic class continued to depict the tribals in the same way in the post-colonial world. There has been very little to no change in these ideas. The tribals are still the marginalized ‘other’ pitted against civilized ‘elites’ in the society.

Govind Nihlani’s Aakrosh depicts the oppression of tribals by the people belonging to the upper caste. Nihlani’s protagonist Bhiku Lahanya is under arrest for murdering his own wife. As the film progresses, we learn that it is not Bhiku that has killed his wife but she has been raped and murdered by the upper caste men for whom Bhiku worked and they are the ones who have framed Bhiku. The film tries its best to portray the exploitation of tribals at the hands of hegemonic class and it succeeds to some extent but where the film fails is in its representation of tribals. Bhiku Lahanya is shown as inarticulate to express his trauma. Throughout the movie he remains a silent spectator.

This silence of Bhiku is very harrowing. Like the hegemonic class have silenced the tribals by not listening to them, Bhiku is also silenced by the narrative. He is not allowed to express his emotions. There are no dialogues uttered by Bhiku in the whole film. Now, this is however not to say that the physical act of speaking is impossible from within the subaltern position as is the case with Bhiku. However, this speech is never regarded as significant utterances, capable of articulating self-interest and self-identity, and without the weight of socio-political agency. Some scholars have suggested that rather than claiming that the subaltern cannot talk, it is more accurate to state that the subaltern cannot be heard by society, much as a mad person cannot be heard by society since her speech is deemed meaningless.

But by making Bhiku not speak, the discourse changes back to the term ‘subaltern cannot speak’ rather than ‘subaltern cannot be heard’ by the hegemonic class. Here the burden of failure lies on the shoulders of tribals rather than on the hegemonic class. The hegemonic class is given a pass for their actions because the tribals are not articulate enough in demanding what they seek. Moreover, in the end Bhiku kills his own sister and though the film underlines the reasons as to why Bhiku did so (to protect his sister from getting raped by the same upper caste men who raped his wife). This is where Bhiku’s silence creates a vacuum, because he does not speak and so cannot give his reasons, the narrative leaves space for the hegemonic narrative to barge in and project Bhiku as a primitive savage who kills his own sister. In stark contrast lies Mahasweta Devi’s Draupadi, the eponymous tribal girl who is subjected to brutal rape and inhuman torture is represented by Mahasweta Devi as the subaltern who can really ‘speak.’ After the tragic incident, Draupadi does not howl or behave like a helpless victim. In the morning, she refuses to put on her clothes, tears her piece of her clothes with her teeth, and wash herself. Her behaviour is incomprehensible, rather strange. In refusing to obey the command, she appears bigger than life to the all too calculating Senanayak, the army commander. She walks naked towards Senanayak in the clear sunlight, very uplifted and determined. She says:

“…what’s the use of clothes? You can strip me, but how can you clothe me again? Are you a man? She looks around and chooses the front of Senanayak’s white bush-shirt to spit the bloody gob at and says, there isn’t man here that I should be ashamed. I will not let you put my cloth on me. What more can you do? Come on, counter me come on, counter me... Draupadi pushes Senanayak with her two mangled breasts and for the first time Senanayak is afraid to stand before an unarmed target, terribly afraid” (Devi 196).

In Dopdi, we have a subaltern woman who speaks, speaks loudly- literally and metaphorically for, her voice is as terrifying, sky splitting, and sharp as her ululation – and makes herself heard. In contrast to Draupadi from the Mahabharata, Devi has not allowed her female protagonist, Dopdi, to be submissive and conquered by the male-dominated society. The ‘cheerharan’ of Draupadi is reconstructed in Devi’s story, subverting the narrative where Draupadi is rescued by a man, Lord Krishna. Instead, in Devi’s narrative, Dopdi is not rescued, yet she continues to exercise her agency by refusing to be a victim, leaving the armed men “terribly afraid.”

Nihlani’s Aakrosh also suffers from the Brahmin saviour complex. The lawyer Bhaskar Kulkarni who fights for Bhiku is a brahmin. One of the characters in the movie tells Kulkarni to not fight against the upper caste landlords because he himself is a brahmin. The narrative depicts him as a saviour who puts his own life in danger to fight for the tribals. This narrative device Bhiku’s plight is smaller in comparison to Kulkarni’s and thus, elevates his character.

Satish Vegesna’s Dongala Bandi (Cart of Thieves) released in 2008 is even more problematic in how it represents tribal developments. The tribals in this movie are stick figures, they are a part of the narrative to be a punching bag for jokes of the ‘civilized’ class. In one scene the film shows the tribals playing cricket with human bones and skulls. This seems to be a weird mixture of modernity and Sanskritization. As the tribes met the non-tribals, the tribal society underwent change. The change was in the direction of getting absorbed in the Hindu society through complex social changes.

“Sanskritization is seen as a process whereby the communities placed lower on the caste hierarchy emulate the way of life of the dominant caste of the region” (Xaxa 18).

The film finds a modern way to depict the concept of Sanskritization where the tribals know the sport (cricket) of the hegemonic class but because of their primitiveness, they use skulls and bones to play the sport. The film also shows the tribals having cheerleaders as they play cricket. This is projecting the ideas and attributes of the hegemonic class onto the tribals.

The film depicts the tribals as savages who want to eat human flesh. They are shown as cooking human flesh. In one scene, one of the tribals is shown biting the hands of a man from another tribe. With the narrative already establishing their cannibalistic nature, this scene depicts the tribals as beasts who can eat human flesh by just biting. The film also depicts tribals as a group with no knowledge of natural phenomena. The narrative shows them as people who can be easily fooled. As the phenomenon of solar eclipse occurs, the ‘civilized’ people try to fool the tribals by saying that they have made the Sun disappear and the Sun will not come out until they let them go. Thus, the narrative shows that the tribals have no knowledge of their own. This clearly establishes the superiority of the ‘civilized’ class over the tribals.

“The consciousness of the distinct and separate identity of all the tribes in India taken as a whole is a part of modern consciousness, brought into being by the colonial state and confirmed by its successor after independence” (Xaxa 1). 

This film helps in projecting a separate consciousness to the tribals in view of the hegemonic class.

Tha Se Gnanavel’s Jai Bhim portrays the lives of the people of Irula tribe of Tamil Nadu. The Irulas are a snake catching community. In the opening scene of the movie, it shows the discrimination faced by the people belonging to the lower caste or tribals. After these people are released from prison, the police outside ask them about their caste and the ones belonging to the lower strata are caught and put in prison again on fraudulent charges. Thus, in the very beginning the narrative drives home the oppression of tribals at the hands of institutions.

In the village there occurs a robbery and a tribal man is accused of robbing because he had been there to catch a snake after being called upon. It is important to note that he is categorized as a criminal because he belongs to a tribe. Here we see the effects of the Criminal Tribes Act brought in by the British and which was re-labelled as Habitual Offenders Act in 1952 by the Indian government. The police torture him in the custody and then he goes missing. Beyond the prison, the worst atrocities are the Irulas' institutional discrimination, categorization as criminals, and the ease with which they are imprisoned and brutalised.

The way people from tribal tribes are exploited for their labour is also something Tha Se Gnanavel gets correctly. Rajakannu supports himself by producing bricks for his oppressors, but he is unable to construct a home for himself. He is summoned whenever there are rats (or snakes) in the fields, but he is not permitted to touch or converse with a member of the dominant caste - he is shooed away by a lady when he claims they are from the same village. We get to watch the numerous ways caste takes shape in Rajakannu's life for about 40 minutes, and the irony plays out nicely, even though it may sound a little insensitive.

Unlike the earlier movie mentioned, Justice Chandru does not come across as a saviour of tribals in the movie. He comes off as an ally. Sengeni also does not come across as a passive character in the movie. She is ready to fight against injustice but does not have access to justice. The film also underlines how the Irulas have been denied justice for a long time. The members of the tribe describe various incidents to the Inspector General Perumalsamy. This is where Justice Chandru’s character becomes an ally who becomes a stepping-stone for Sengeni to get justice. It is Sengeni and Rajakannu’s struggles that are the major plot points in the narrative. Jai Bhim becomes different from a usual super cop movie in terms of its thorough investigation of police misbehaviour. The film comes very close to representing the lives of the tribals.

There are not many movies highlighting the struggles of the tribals. Most of the movies try to project the colonial ideas of how tribals are. They are still depicted as primitive savages who lack any knowledge. At the very least, films like Jai Bhim are attempting to modify colonial perceptions about tribal people. It is critical that we do not revert to colonial thinking. Tribals portraying themselves in films should be the next phase in the evolution.

Theory of ‘Development’: Displacement and Migration of Tribals

The marginalization of the geographical space of the tribals is done through the process of ‘development.’ The tribals are forced to move from their homes by the elites (hegemonic class) in the name of development. The tribals are made to think about moving to cities for their ‘progress.’ This is the perfect example to understand Antonio Gramsci’s notion of hegemony. Hegemony can be understood as a mode of exercising authority. Gramsci argued that authority can be exercised not only through brute force but also through a non-coercive method. Within a society, the ruling class mostly asserts itself, by convincing the entire population that the interest of the ruling class is the interest of the entire population. Gramsci refers to this non-coercive assertion of political authority by a particular class over other groups of people as hegemony. The same is happening with the tribals, they are being convinced by the hegemonic class to move to cities in the name of progress and then exploiting the resources of the tribals for their own good.

“According to another study (2011), around 50 million people have been displaced in India due to ‘development’ projects in over 50 years. Of these, dams, mines, industrial development, and others account for the displacement of over 21 million ‘development’ induced Internally Displaced Persons [IDPs]. Of these, the Adivasi communities, constituting about 40%, are the worst affected” (Eviction of Tribals: Forced Displacement and Its Links With Poor Health).

Jacinta Kerketta is very critical of this notion of ‘development’ in her poems. Jacinta Kerketta’s poems are a commentary against the prevalent understanding of development that is propagated by the Indian State. In her poem O, City! we see Jacinta talk about the displacement and migration of tribal population to the cities in search of a better life. This idea that a city offers a ‘better life’ is also propagated by the Indian State because of their need for cheap labour in the city. The tribals are lured in by the State and then exploited for cheap labour. The tribals who migrate to cities lead a very dismal life and struggle to keep to their living standard that they had enjoyed in their homeland.

Jacinta writes about the illegal mining that has wrecked the life of tribals in the poem The Six-Lane Freeway of Deceit. The attack on the concept of progress is more direct and visible. The concept of progress is misleading the tribals once more; the government gets to show its people a motorway being built. The mining companies profit from the tribals' riches, while the tribals are forced to work as slaves for pitiful wages. All they get from 'development' (freeway construction) is disease, unemployment, and powerlessness, which the mining firms force down their throats.

The tribals are moved away from their homes by the non-coercive method of migration or are forced to move by displacement. We see the hegemonic class using both physical force and non-coercive method. The two short stories by Hansda Sowvendra Shekhar, November is the Month of Migrations and The Adivasi Will Not Dance throw better light on this process. In the first story Hansda talks about how all Santhal men, women and children must migrate to the Bardhaman district of West Bengal in the month of November. This migration seems to be a yearly one because the Santhals have become used to it. Though Hansda never gives the reason for their migration, it is understood that the State or hegemonic class is again using them as cheap labour to plant rice in their paddies. This non-coercive idea put forth by the hegemonic class that migrating to plant rice paddies for some money is for their own good is so deep-rooted that the tribal women go through the horrors of getting raped and continue their migratory journey. Talamai’s reaction when she is being raped by a Diku (outsider) tells us that the tribal women have gotten used to it. “Talamai…has to do nothing, only spread her legs and lie quiet. She knows: everything is done by the man. She just lies --- passive, unthinking, unblinking” (Shekhar 41).

But when this non-coercive method is ineffective, the State abuses its power to displace the tribals from their lands. In The Adivasi Will Not Dance, Hansda points out how the government abuses its power to displace the tribals of Godda district in Jharkhand, to build a thermal power plant. The tribals are told that the thermal plant will provide electricity to the iron and steel plants set up in Jharkhand. The businessman who is building the thermal power plant also uses this non-coercive method of making the people believe that the whole of Jharkhand would get electricity from the plant but it was just a sham for his own selfish needs. When the tribals protested the thermal power plant, the administration asked the tribals to vacate their villages and the agitators were beaten up and thrown in police lock-ups. Tribal communities have been forced to relocate to unfamiliar and harsh locations, far from their traditional habitats, as a result of forced displacement. Forced displacement has made tribals more vulnerable to exploitation, leading to poverty, chronic malnutrition, and bad health, as well as considerable psychological trauma. In this story too, we see the adverse effect of ‘development’ upon the tribals.

The idea of ‘development’ and ‘progress’ put forth by the hegemonic class is faulty. This faulty notion of ‘development’ can be deconstructed, if we look at the tragic incident of Chuni Kotal. Chuni Kotal, an Adivasi woman from the Lodha Shabars tribal community in West Bengal, was the first woman to graduate from one. During colonial authority, the British labelled the Lodhas as a criminal tribe, and they have lived with that label ever since. Kotal committed suicide in 1992 as a result of this stain on her community's identity and the hostility she endured as a result of it. The tribals are excluded from the State's (or hegemonic class's) 'progress.' Chuni had the potential to be a pioneer in the growth of tribals as a result of her accomplishments. But the State and hegemonic class failed her, Chuni felt trapped and oppressed by the job. She was meant to work for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all year long, with no breaks. Even if she only wanted to leave the hostel for a few hours or days, she had to get permission from administrators who were unconcerned about her troubles. Due to a lack of hospital beds, Kotal's ailing father came to stay with her for a day or two, according to Mahasweta Devi. An officer from the district office accused her of 'entertaining men' on the premises of the hostel.

The upper-caste professors would mark her absent even when she was present in the class. She lost two years because she would not be allowed to give her exams because of her low attendance. The professors continued to discriminate against her and referred to her tribe and village as "criminals" during this time. They made insulting remarks about how, due to her 'low-born' position and the tribe she belongs to, she had no right to an education. Unable to bear the harassment and heckling at the hands of university officials and teachers, Chuni, at the age of 27, eventually killed herself. In this incident, we see the hegemonic class standing against the self-professed ‘development’ and ‘progress’ of the tribals. The State and hegemonic class’s concept of ‘development’ is reserved for themselves.

It is important to note that the tribals live in regions rich in natural resources. Because they dwell in resource-rich locations, the tribals have been disproportionately affected by the development process. Most of the country's coal, mica, bauxite, and other minerals are mined in tribal areas. Mining activity affects the livelihoods of many more people than direct displacement because water tables are altered, an enormous burden is imposed on fertile agricultural land, and forests are removed. Thus, it makes sense for the State to instil in tribals the concept of 'progress.' Because through these notions the State can displace the tribals from these economically richer regions and they are able to exploit the natural resources. Also, the tribals form the cheap labour required by the economy. To conclude, the concept of 'development' is just another non-coercive strategy used by the State and the hegemonic class to exploit the tribals and their resources.

Conclusion

The tribals suffer the brunt of the so-called development. Through her poems, Kerketta wants “The tribal community as a whole need to ask itself what its idea of progress is, and what threatens its culture the most, and address them” (Kerketta). Her poems talk about the identity issues of a young Adivasi. The tribal community faces a formidable challenge from the dominant religion, culture, and language. Jacinta urges the tribal community to not lose their culture and value because of the pressures of dominant culture. Kerketta’s tries to give a new identity to the term Adivasi. The knowledge of the tribals (through historical suppression) has suffered because of the epistemic violence where they have always been made to feel inferior to the dominant culture. They are always represented as primitive beings in the popular culture who bear the brunt of jokes as seen in moves like Dongala Bandi.

This essay deals with the question of representation of tribals in cinema and with the notion of ‘development’ and the adverse effects it has the tribals. The colonial Criminal Tribes Act has taken a new form in Habitual Offenders Act in the post-Independence era. The systemic suppression of the tribals has led to the loss of identity. The continuous historical, geographical, economical, and social marginalization of tribals have forced them to become the ‘post-colonial other’ in the Indian society.

.     .     .

Bibliography:

• Devi, Mahasweta. “Dopdi” in Breast Stories of Mahasweta Devi. New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1993. Digital File.
• Kapadia, K. M. "The Criminal Tribes of India." Sociological Bulletin 1.2 (1952): 99-125. Jstor. <www.jstor.org/stable/42864482>.
• Kerketta, Jacinta. Why The Adivasis Must Seek to Redefine Themselves. 10 August 2020. 7 December 2021. <thewire.in/rights/world-tribal-day-adivasis-identity-hindutva-resource-extraction>.
• Sarojini Nadimpally, Deepa Venkatachalam and Adsa Fatima. Eviction of Tribals: Forced Displacement and Its Links With Poor Health. 28 February 2019. Web. 5 February 2022. <thewire.in/rights/supreme-court-eviction-tribals-displacement>.
• Shekhar, Hansda Sowvendra. The Adivasi Will Not Dance. New Delhi: Speaking Tiger, 2015. Print.
• Xaxa, Virginius. State, Society, and Tribes: Issues in Post-Colonial India. New Delhi: Pearson Longman, 2008. Digital File.