corbridge competing inequalities

8/2/2019 Corbridge Competing Inequalities

1/25

Competing Inequalities: The Scheduled Tribes and the Reservations System in India'sJharkhandAuthor(s): Stuart CorbridgeSource: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Feb., 2000), pp. 62-85Published by: Association for Asian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2658584 .Accessed: 03/08/2011 01:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afas. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association for Asian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of Asian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2658584?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afashttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afashttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2658584?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afas


2/25

Competing nequalities:TheScheduledTribesand theReservations ystem n India'sJharkhandSTUART CORBRIDGE

IntroductionThis paper reports n the economic and political consequences f reservinggovernmentndpublic-sectorobs formembers ftheScheduled ribes n the ndianState of Bihar. It also contributes o a more generaldebate on the systemofcompensatoryiscriminationhathas existedn ndiasince he1940s,and whichwasmadetangibleformiddle class ndiansby the decisionof thegovernmentf V. P.

Singh 1989-90) to adopt some of the recommendationsf the Second BackwardClasses Commission1979-80: chairman . P. Mandal). The Mandal Commissionreportdvised hat system f reservedobs in central overnmentouldusefully eextended rom heScheduledCastes nd Tribesof ndia (roughly 5 and7.5 percentof the population, respectively)o embracea broadercollectionof SociallyandEconomically ackwardClasses.' In August 1990 V. P. Singh found t expedient oStuart orbridges Professorf nternationaltudiest theUniversityfMiami, lorida,U.S.A., nd Fellow f idneyussex ollege, ambridge,.K. He wishes o hank shutoshVarshneyor is ncouragement,ndPaulBrass or isdetailed ommentsna versionf he

paper hatwasread tthe50thAnnualMeetingf heAssociationor sian tudiesWash-ington .C., March 998). He is also gratefulo CraigJeffrey,anjayKumar, nd ManojSrivastavaor heir elpfuldvice,nd o he nonymouseadersorheJAS or heirommentsand uggestions.'Legislationn behalf f ndia's cheduled asteswasfirstnactedn1943; similareg-islationor he cheduledribeswaspassedn1950.Asystemf ompensatoryiscriminationwasmeant o astuntil 960 andno onger. ythat ime, r othefoundersf ndependentIndia upposed,heeconomic uplift" f thecountry'soorestnd most backward"om-munities ould ecomplete. nation f overeignndividualsqualbeforehe awwould efusedogetherytheplannedmodernizationf raditionalndia.But this s nothow hingsturned ut.Theaccommodativeandscapesf ndian olitics avenot ncouragedtransferofprivatessets o the cheduledommunities,ndthese ommunitiesave utpressurensuccessiveovernmentso renew frameworkfpositiveiscrimination.heenablingegis-lationwasduly eenactedt the nd f he1950s, 960s, 970s, nd1980s,npart, odoubt,because ndia'smajor olitical artiesandnot east heCongress arty) ere een ocornerthevotes f he cheduledommunities.

TheJournalfAsian tudies9,no.1 (February000):62-85.(? 2000by heAssociationorAsian tudies,nc.62


3/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 63act uponMandal's uggestion hatup to 49.5 percent f ll jobs ncentral overnmentservices ndpublic undertakingshould be reserved or he ScheduledCastes SCs),Scheduled ribes STs), and OtherBackward lasses OBCs).2Singh'sJanata al partygainedvotes disproportionatelyrom he 3,743 castes, ribes r communities52.4percent fthe ndian population) hattheMandal CommissionReport dentifiedsBackwardSivarammaya 996, 222; see also Brass 1994).The fury nleashedby varioushigh-caste ommunitiesn the wake of V. P.Singh'sdecisionwas quite predictable. ublic-sectorobs in India aremuch soughtafter nd areregarded ymanyhigh-castemen, nd somewomen, sa bulwark gainsttheuncertaintieshat can be inducedby economicdevelopment. ublic-sector teelplants, or xample,have ongprovided heirworkers ithdearness llowances, ickpay, andguaranteed olidaysn addition o quite reasonablewages Joshi ndLittle1994). As onerespondentoldthe nthropologistonathan arrywhenhe hasworkingat Bhilaisteelplant nMadhyaPradesh, herewas "nomother r fatherike t" Parry1996). Much thesame can be saidof ndia's banks,whichwerenationalized yMrs.Gandhi in 1971. The proposals f Mandal and V. P. Singhthreatened igh-casteIndians with increased competitionfor jobs and university laces, and thiscompetition amefrommorepowerful ommunitieshan theScheduledCastes orTribes.Violentresponses ereparfor hecourse.Butwhat of the nitialreservationsystem nd itssupposedbeneficiaries? hatlessons an be learned rom study f tsfunctioning,oth nterms ftheworkingsof ocal labormarketsnd the formation fpolitical ttitudes?Has thereservationssystem mpoweredmembers f the scheduled ommunitiesn terms f livelihoodstrategiesr accesstogovernmentgencies, nd can it be linkedto theformationfpolitical groupingsthat seek to further he interests f particular cheduledcommunities? anchan Chandra thisvolume) arguesthatthe rise of the BahujanSamaj Party BSP) in Punjaband UttarPradesh s linkedto theemergencefa classofgovernmentfficersrawnfrom heranksofthe ScheduledCastes. Affirmativeactionhashelped opave theway opolitical mpowerment.hispaper ffersfurtherperspectiveon present concerns by reviewing the system of compensatorydiscriminations it hasappliedto India's ScheduledTribes.The papertakesshape along three xes. At the coreof thepaperthere s anempiricaltudy f he ystemfreservedobs andtoa lesser xtent hat f ducationalsupport) hathas operated n behalf f ST communitiesn southBihar. This studyis linked o anaccount fthechanging osition ftribal ommunitiesnindependentIndia. The Government f India maintains hat tribalsociety s egalitarian ndundifferentiated.t offersompensatoryiscriminationo STs onthisbasis. disputethis view. I critiquethe ideologyof tribaleconomy nd societyupon which this

20f all such obs, 22.5 percentwere lready eserved ormembers f theScheduled om-munities. ingh'sproposalwas for further 7 percent ranche freservedobs formembersof the Other BackwardClasses.Among Hindu OBCs, caste,or ati (subcaste), efinesmem-bership f a "class" grouping, nd most Hindu OBCs come from uralSudra communities.India'spolitical andscapesweretransformedn the 1980s and 1990s by the riseto powerofpoliticalparties epresentinghe OBCs. The phenomenons most pparentnnortherntateslikeUttar Pradesh nd Bihar,but it is not confined o India'sHindi-speaking eartland: eeBrass1994, Chandra this volume);Jaffrelotthis volume);Yadav 1997. See also Shah1991.In South ndia, ubstantial eservationsor Cs in state overnmentervices avebeen ommonsincethe1960s. It is also worthnoting hat: Educational oncessionsbutnotreserved ostsjforOtherBackward Classes began in U.P. in 1948" (Galanter1991, 161), and that theGovernment f Bihar ssueda list of BackwardClassesas early s 1951.


4/25

64 STUART CORBRIDGEsuggestion ests, nd I considerhowand whytheformationfa tribalmiddle classhasbeen encouragedbut not nitiated) y the reservationsystem.A third trand fthepaperreflects oregenerally n accounts fdevelopmentnd antidevelopmentnIndia,particularlys these pply o tribal ommunities. lthough dispute tatic ndstereotypicalccounts f "tribalness"n India, I do not acceptthatthe category ftribe s entirely ictivera simple by-product f official ategories.Nor do I acceptthat tate-sponsoredevelopmentn India has worked ntirely r exclusively o thedisadvantage f tribalhouseholds. he evidence rom ihar uggests hatmanypoortribalshaveaccessed obs in the public sector nd have amassedcultural apital onthatbasis. n addition, t seems lear hat he reservationsystemnBiharhas servedas an important ite for he production fa tribal lite or petty ourgeoisie.The paper s organized s follows. he first ection s concerned ithwhatMarcGalanter asdescribeds a systemf"competing qualities" Galanter 991), orwhatwemightdescribe, ollowing oucault, s attempts ythe tate n independentndiato create new class of "modern ex)-Backwards" y virtue f economic nd legalinterventionspparently esigned to reposition ndia's troublesome marginal"groups SCs and STs). It setsthe scene for he empirical nalysis hatfollows. alsocomment n workbyRonald Inden whichsuggests hatthenormalizing oice in"modern ndia" is a unitaryvoice, and damagingto manyof India's marginalcommunitiess a result Inden 1995). The third trand f thepapercan be readas acritical ngagement ith nden's work.The nextsection of the paper minesa more empiricalvein. On the basis offieldworkata collected hroughhe1980s and 1990s in tribal outhBihar theBiharJharkhand), seek to answer wo sets ofquestions.First,whatevidence s there osuggest hat system freservationsfgovernmentervicendpublic-sectorobshasworked o theadvantage fScheduledTribalhouseholds?f suchan advantagehasbeen secured, o whomhas it accrued nd bywhatmeans?Have the benefits f areservationsystem eenmonopolized yparticular roupswithin heST community?Ifso,what mplicationsmight hisholdfor hecategoryST" and the tate'sdeologyof an undifferentiatedribaleconomy nd society? econd, what, if any,are thepolitical consequencesof the reservationsystem, n terms of "tribal" politicalidentities,spirations,nd activities?s it the ase, sCrispinBateshasargued ecently(Bates 1994), verymuch n line with nden,that ndia's so-called riginal radivasi(ST) populationswere nvented ysuch acts ofclassification/reservation,ndthat hishasharmed hose ommunities alled ntoexistence s supplicants f the state?The broadconclusions f thepaper re setout in the final ection. suggest hatthereservationsystemnBihar has beencapturedn part by well-to-do ribals, hevastmajority fwhom aremale and manyof whom now reside n urban reas. Butthis s not becauseofthe reservationsystemtself. he reservationsystem as notbrought tribal middle class into existence;rather t has been captured by apreexistingribal lite,theexistence f whichtheframersfthe Constitution hosenot to acknowledge. his elite is building ts stockofculturalor social) capital nand throughts effortso access funded) laces n stateeducational nstitutions.3tribalelite is also using its success n the educational renato accesspositions f(relative) conomic ndpoliticalpower n Jharkhand.

3The eferenceoculturalapitals indebtedo thework fPierre ourdieu1984);thereferenceo social apital efers ore pecificallyo thebuilding p ofnetworksf nteractionwith ndtrustn governmentndnongovernmentgencies.


5/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 65But it is not only members f a preexisting ribal elite who are using statepatronage or heir wn ends,norare these ends"entirely rivate. he reservations

system as served oexpand he ize ofthetribalmiddleclass,particularly here obsare inked oeducational ualificationsather han ocialbackground.t hasalso forcedgovernmentfficerso pay morethan ust lip-service o the idea of compensatorydiscriminationyinstituting,or xample,roster ystems f ob advertisementndallocation uchthat ach service ob hasa serialnumberndan indication fwhetherit is reserved or particular ommunity.4he reservationsystem as evenhelped ocrystallize conceptionof adivasi identitythat recognizesthe exploitation/marginalizationfmany ribal ommunities,nd whichdemands ompensation romthe authorities. o theextent hatthis dentity an be mobilizedbyadvocates faseparate harkhandtate, t may yetbe thatcompensatoryiscrimination ill havepositive,funintended,ffectsponthebroader arget opulation f STs. The stingin the tail is that thesepositiveeffects epend upon the ST populationsof theJharkhandefusing arious rogramsfpolitical nd cultural ormalizationroposedon theirbehalfbythe framers f theConstitution. heirstrengthies in exploitingthepolitics fdifference/protection,ot thepolitics fsameness/normalization.

Normalizinghe "Other"?TheConstitutionf1950 and India'sScheduled ommunitiesIn a perceptiveecent aper,Ronald ndenhasargued hat hediscourse fnation-building that India committed tself to in the 1950s was a discourseof highmodernism hichfailed o registertssimilarities o earlier onceptionsf mperialprogress nd religious rocession Inden 1995; see also Inden 1990, ch. 5).5 Indentakesup a commonobservation bout India's commitment o "development"fterIndependencendcarefullyubvertst. nden grees hat key ounderstandingost-Independencendia is the dea (or imperative)fmodernization.ndia in the 1950ssought o nvent tself new s theopposite f he ocietyhathadbeenpushed owardsfamine nd Partition/parturitionenyears arlier. trengthwould be found n the

newfoundingmyths fsocialism, ecularism, ederalism,nddemocracyCorbridgeand Harriss 000). India would throw ff heshackles ftradition nd imperialismand would embrace reason and the agencies of modernization includingindustrialization,ducation, imediscipline, rbanization,nd family lanning).All this s wellknown.But Inden subverts his ccountby nsistinghatReasonand Planninghavetaken theplace ofReligionand ImperialProgressn the "newIndia" onlyto endup imitating hem. ndencontends hatdevelopmentnmodern4Notificationf a job bymeansofa roster oes not ensure hat all jobs are filled; heemployer an invokethe criterion f efficiencyo block theemployment fa member faScheduledorNotified ommunity. otwithstandinghisprovision, he serialnumber f thejob is not ost at least not forgovernmentobs in Bihar). The post remains pen, ostensiblyto be filledbya suitable candidate t a later date. The act of notification ay also cautionStateofficersgainstvisibly nfair iring ractices ecauseof the threat f itigationhatnowhangs over them. t could reasonably e argued thatthemacroeconomicfficiencyf Bihar'slabor markets-public and private-is not helped by such "tentative ureaucratisation'(aphrasemuch oved by a bureaucrat riend f mine), but that s notmy concernhere. willcomment n the marketn reservedobs later n thepaper.50n high modernism,ee Scott 1998.


6/25

66 STUART CORBRIDGEIndia hasbeen stablished ycourtesy f concept fReason-embodied inplanning,the PlanningCommission, nd in Nehru himself-that s every it as transcendentalas the religious progresses hat endowed the medieval king of kings with the"luminouswill" ofVishnu Inden 1995, 271). In each case,particularilgrimages rprogressesor small-scale evelopments)re ublimated nto granderdea ofProgressorModernity, grander dea that urns ts back on the ivesand wishes fa majorityof ndianswho are expected o heed theirmaster's oice and respond utifully.The conclusion hat ndendrawsfromll this s a controversialne,and one thatI shareonly n part.The luminouswill thatstandsbehind nden is Foucault, ndIndenshares the early)Foucault's astefor eeingpower s damagingrather han sdisabling-and-enabling.nden wants to celebrate hevoicesof those he believes ohave been damaged by ndia's imperiousmarch owards evelopment.He wants oresist the idea that developmentas representedby large dams and heavyindustrializations developmentn a deeper ense.For nden, s for scobar Escobar1995), it is a shamdevelopment hat houldbe and sresisted y the ess transcendentprocessions fthepoorandmarginalized; ygheraosrblockades, y ndolansprotestmovements)ike Chipko,and evenby Hindu nationalisma politicalprojectthatrefuseshemyth fsecularism: ee also Kaviraj1991, andHansen 1999).But there re problemswith this view. Even as Inden highlights ne set ofcontradictionsn the discourse fmodernization,e failsto noticeanother.6ndenchoosesnotto acknowledge hatmanyof ndia's "marginal" roups, ts ScheduledCastes ndTribes,mightwelcome omeaspects ftheneworder fDevelopmentndthe obsand education tbringswith t;he choosesnot to see thatdevelopment itha capitalD can be reshaped nd reclaimedby "marginal/Other"roupswithoutditching he idea in its entiretyr theclaimsthatcan be made on thestate n itsname. nden s also inattentiveothecontradictionshathehimself ighlightsnthestate's attitudetowardsdissentingvoices. It is true that: "Political leaders havepoliced,banned, atrolled, egulated,monitoredndmarginalized rocessionss bestthey an" Inden 1995, 273), but so alsohasthe tate hadto toleratehem ndevenappropriatehem" 273), as itdidwiththeChipko ndolan. n sum,thediscourse fmodernizationhat ndenrightly potlightswas alwaysmorefracturedhanhe latersuggests.Nowherewas thismore rue han n the state'sdebatewith tself,nd withsome concerned ommunityeaders, ver ntegrationnd isolation s twopossiblemeansofdealingwith ndia's Scheduled opulations fterndependence.The Constitution f India followedon from four-year eriodwhen variousgroups nvolvedn themaking fa modern ndia thought ut loud aboutwhatthatIndia should look like. The ConstituentAssemblydebates of 1946-49 give aremarkablensight nto the founding f a postcolonial olity, s indeed does theConstitution roposedfor doption by theAssembly n "thistwenty-sixthayofNovember, 949." The Fundamental ightsoftheConstitution ommit ndia to aWesternmodelof ocietal elations, hereby sovereign emocraticepublic esolvesto securefor ll its citizensJustice, iberty, quality,and Fraternity.7rticle15maintains hat The State hall not discriminategainst nycitizen ngrounds nly

60n thedangers f ssentialism ithin he nti- r postdevelopmentaradigm, ee Berger1995, Cowen and Shenton1996 and Corbridge1998. For two verydifferent,ut equallyilluminating ccounts fthedilemmasofdevelopment,r the Faustian ragedy f moderni-zation, ee Toye 1993 and Berman1982.70n the ndian Constitution nd nation-building,ee Austin 1993, Jalal 1995, Phadnis1989, Sudarshan 994, andVanaik 1990. On constitutionalonventionsn comparative er-spective, ee Spillman 1996.


7/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 67ofreligion, ace, aste, ex,place of birth r anyofthem."New Indian bodieswill beproduced hat re not carred y theprimordialmarkings fcaste nd communalism.Education nd the aw will see to it. Untouchability,ndeed, "is abolished nd itspractice n any form s forbidden."n addition to these FundamentalRights,themakers f modern ndiaprovided ariousnonjusticiable irective rinciples fStatePolicywhich utagainst hegrain f qual treatmentor ll bythe tate.The DirectivePrinciples mbody Fabian conception f the state s redeemer/provider.conomicand socialgroups nable o ook afterhemselves,rwhichmightbe thought o sufferfromresidualforms f exploitation/discriminations the old India withers way,shouldqualify or ctive tate upport/protectionor limitedperiod.The keyArticles f theConstitution mbodyinghisvieware as follows:1. Article 6: "The State hallpromotewith pecial are he ducational nd economicinterestsf the weaker ections f thepeople,and, nparticular,f theScheduledCastes and ScheduledTribes, nd shallprotect hemfrom ocial njustice nd allforms fexploitation";2. Articles 30, 332, 334: provide orReserved eatsfor cheduled astes nd Tribesin the House of the People for ten years since extendedby ConstitutionalAmendment cts n 1959, 1969, 1980, and 1990);3. Article 35: "Theclaims f hemembersf heScheduled astes nd the cheduledTribes shall be taken nto consideration,onsistently iththe maintenance fefficiencyfadministration,n themakingofappointmentso services ndpostsin connection ith the affairsf theUnionor of a State";4. Article 338: "There shall be a Special Officerlater Commissioner] or theScheduledCastes nd ScheduledTribes to be appointed ythePresident";5. Articles 41 and 342: allow thePresident, y public notification,o specifyhecastes, aces, r tribeswhich hall for hepurposes fthe Constitution e deemedto be Scheduled astesorTribes, ndto consultwith heGovernorf Statewherethe Schedule s to apply t a State-level.

It would be follyto assume that these provisionswere not welcomedbyrepresentativesf heScheduled astes ndScheduled ribes.Evidence o the ontrarycanbe foundntheConstituent ssembly ebates. peaking gainstGandhiannotionsofvillage self-rule,heUntouchable eaderDr. Ambedkar enounced ndianvillagesas "densof gnorance, arrow-mindednessnd communalism"Constituent ssemblyDebates [CAD], 1946-49, 6: 39). As Galanterpoints out, Ambedkar"ardentlysupportedmachine echnology hichwouldprovide eisure, ultural dvancement,andfinally quality.To the ameend,herejectedGandhi's deal oftrusteeshipytherich nfavor f kindof tate ocialismwhichwouldpromote apid ndustrialisation.And in spiteof his suspicion hat ndiamightrequirebenevolentutocracy, ewasa supporterfcentralizedarliamentaryovernmentather hanofvillage utonomy.In all ofthisAmbedkar toodcloser othe eftwingoftheCongress han ither toodtoGandhi" 1991, 39; see also Ambedkar 945). In contemporaryerms,we mightsaythatAmbedkarwas not an advocateofalternative evelopment,f a model of(anti-)developmenthathewould havedismissedsromanticnd ikely obecapturedbytheforces f reaction.Norwas itthe casethat ndia'selitegroupswere lways mpressed ythemodelofcompensatoryiscriminationmbodied n theDirective rinciples fStatePolicy.Masani warned n December1946 that: "Either henation bsorbs heseminoritiesor, n course f time, t breaksup" (CAD 1: 91). Likewise, harma eclared hat"itis in the nterests fthe tribal lassesnot to be told again and againthatbecause hey


8/25

68 STUART CORBRIDGEare nferior eople, becausethey re weaker eople, thereforeuch and such facilitiesare provided for them" (CAD 8: 515-16). I would also cite the more forcefulcomplaints f AssemblyMembersB. R. Singh from ihar and B. Das fromOrissa.According o Singh,"it must be painingeverybodyn thiscountry o find hatwehave begun to do thingsnow againstwhich we have so long protested uringtheBritish ule" CAD 9: 984-85; that s, Scheduling astes,Tribes, nd Areas or pecialtreatment). nd Das: "Though t has been thoughtwisdomfor ver centuryo keepthese tribal people and these Scheduled Areas as museums for purposes ofdemonstrationnd exhibition efore heworldto justifyheir British) xistencenIndia,what s thepurpose oday o perpetuate his vil? .. I mustfranklytate hatI am not at all happy or heway nwhichwehavebeenproceeding, opyingnmostcases mportant ortions ftheActof1935" (CAD 9: 994).

Das's complaintwas notwithoutmerit.The Constitution f 1950 did replicatemanyof theprovisions f the (imperial)Act of 1935, and his referenceo tribalmuseumsnd exhibitionspokedirectlyoa policy f solationism hatmany olonialofficersursuedwithout uestion.The arrogancefthisviewwas perfectlyxpressedbya ColonelWedgwood, peakingn theU.K. Parliamentaryebates of1935. "Theonly chancefor hese tribal]people,"said Wedgwood,"is to protect hemfromcivilisationwhichwill destroy hemand for hatpurpose, believe,directBritishcontrol s thebest. . . Unlessyouhaveourexperiencef the astfiftyr even onehundred nd fifty earsndealingwith thisproblem, t is impossible o say that nyother aceon earth an ookafter hem o well" GovernmentftheUnitedKingdom1935, 299 House ofCommonsDebates, 5s, cols. 1548-49). It is hardly urprisingthat many Congressmen-and members of the RashtriyaSwayamsevak angh(R.S.S.)8-resisted this "isolationism" and demanded the assimilation intomainstreamndian life of communitieshatG. S. Ghurye eferredo as "degradedHindus" or "so-called borigines" Ghurye1980). Modernizations normalizationhad many upportersn the ndian nationalistndsocial scientificommunities.he(post)-colonial therhadto be tied nto thebodypoliticof the new nation.Intriguingly,hough, heConstitutionefuses hisbluntview, urging hat theintegrationf ndia'sDepressed r BackwardClasses has to be worked orbya statethat n the short-run ill have to recognize ifferences,fonlyto erasethem ater.This attitudewas furtheromplicatednrelation o theScheduledTribesbyNehru'swillingnessorespectribal laims o"develop ccordingo their wngenius" Nehru1955). The tribalOtherwasexoticized s wellas patronized;tdemanded rotectionas wellas developmentseeElwin1960; and see alsoGuha 1999). In thisrespect,hemakers f modern ndia treated he SCs and theSTs differently.n thecase of theScheduledCastes,the state has takentheviewthateconomicdeprivationnd lowritual tatus re nterlinked,nd thatgovernmentctions n bothfrontsanrapidlyspeedthe ntegrationfSCs intoa modern olityorganized round lass and meritratherhan aste nd statusseeBeteille1965). Themaindifficultyhe tatehasfacedin regard o the SCs is in thematter fnotification.he framersf theConstitutiondiscovered,s theSimonCommissionnd the1931CensusCommissioner,. Hutton,had discovered arlier, hat"untouchability"means differenthings n South andNorth ndia, so much so thatUntouchablesn one Statemightnot be treated s

8The Hindu nationalist .S.S. continues o be very ctive nJharkhand, here t enjoysa formidable eputation or roviding ighquality ducational nd health-care acilities. .S.S.members lso helped to lay the foundationsftherisetopowerof the Bharatiya anata arty(BJP) in the region n the 1990s.


9/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 69untouchablen a neighboringtate.The notificationf communitiess SC has beena controversial,nd heavily itigated, ssue in Indian political ifesince 1950 (seeGalanter 991, ch. 5 for discussion; ee also Fuller1996).But not so theScheduledTribes.Notwithstanding tautological efinition fjust who the tribalsare-in 1951 the Commissioner or Scheduled Castes andScheduledTribesproposed s common lements tribal rigin, rimitive ayof ife,remote abitation nd generalbackwardnessn all respects"-thestatehas faced ewlegal challenges o its istsofScheduled ribes.Since1950, India's Scheduled ribeshavebeen the recipients fa rangeofgovernmentalrograms hathave been bothprotective nd developmentaln inspirationGalanter1991, 153). Theseprogramshave tonce claimed orespectheculturalndgeographical istinctivenessf ndia'sSTs while at the same timeprovidingScheduled Tribals with opportunities or"advancement" hrough ducational cholarships,eservedobs (in Centre nd Stategovernment ositions ince 1950, and in public sectorenterprisesince the late-1960s), and reserved eats in Parliament nd LegislativeAssemblies. t is to therhetoric nd reality ftheseclaims on behalf f "tribal protective)modernization"that nowturn.

Mining theSeams ofCompensatoryDiscriminationA common omplaint gainst orms fpositive iscrimination/affirmativection/compensatory iscrimination s that the benefits n offerfromthe state aremonopolizedby elite groupswithin the targetconstituencieswhat is called the"creamy ayer" n India).9 t is furtheruggested hatcultures fdependencyrecreatedby such actions. Set against these claims, proponents f compensatorydiscriminationn India havepointedto therangeofexistingdiscriminationsacedbyvulnerabletarget) roups; heyhavealso insisted hat uchcompensations is onofferhouldbe for limitedperiodonly.Proponentsf reservationsn respect f theScheduled ribesfurther aintain hat litegroups reunlikelyocapture hebenefits

of compensatoryiscriminationecauseelitegroups do not existin India's tribalcommunities. his point s importantnd I will return o it later.The Indian stateclaimsto treatScheduledTribal communities nd areason thebasis thatthey reoutside hecaste ystemnd inkeyrespectsreundivided ndunaffectedyprocessesofeconomicmodernization. his is why system freservationsas to be balancedbylegislation hatprotects ribal ommunities rom andsalesandmoney ontractsthat eektoexploit heirgnorancer nnocence.ndia's Scheduled astes,bycontrast,are not assumed o be landowners,nd the statehasno interestnmaintaining heircultural nd economic raditions;dvancementndchange renecessarynddesirablefor hese ommunities.I haveshown lsewhere hat ndia's ideology f tribal conomy nd societyhaslongbeen at oddswiththerealities f tribal ife n partsof central ndia (Corbridge1988). The discoveryfcoal and iron ore and othermineralsnJharkhandn thenineteenthndearly-twentiethenturies nsured hat his unspoilt" ribalhomelandwould be spoiledsoonenoughto meet thedemandsof ndustrynd forprofitn a90n affirmativection n the U.S., see Skrentny 995; in India, see Mitra1990 andShah1996. For moregeneral eflections,ee Sen 1992.


10/25

70 STUART CORBRIDGE

slowly modernizing ndia (see Figure 1). Outsiders, or dikus, poured into theJharkhand romnorthBihar and easternUttar Pradesh n the 1930s, 1940s, and1950s, ntheprocess hanging heethnic omposition f he region Sengupta 982).At the sametime,many aborigines" nd "semi-aborigines,"s theBritish tyled hetribalsof this regionbefore he 1930s, were nducted nto the mines' abor-forces(Bahl 1995; Simmons1976). Althoughhundreds f tribals ied in the mines,manythousandsmoreearned ncomesfar n excessofanything hey ould have earned ntheirvillages. By the 1940s a tribalmiddle class was apparent n rural reas of theJharkhand,s mining r ex-mining ribalfamilies cquired and from ess fortunatetribalfamilies Corbridge1993). Such land transactions ere not outlawedby theChotaNagpur TenancyAct of1908,which ssumed hat anded tribalsneededonlyto be protected gainst nregulatedandtransferso nontribals. nothermiddle lassof sortswas emergingn the 1940s amongeducatedChristian ribal ommunities,someofwhomwerealready esidentn towns ikeRanchi and Chaibasa Lal 1983).In sum, tribal litewasalreadynplacewhen systemfreservedobs ngovernmentservicewas introducedn "tribalJharkhand"n 1950. Its rankshad swollenfurtherbythe timethis ystem f reservation as extended o public-sectorobs in the ate1960s. A certain mountof"elite capture" f reservedobs was inevitablen manypartsof "tribal"central ndia,whatever he rhetoric fgovernmentlaims to thecontrary.But howmuchcapture asthere een, nd howdamaging s such capture or hestate's ideologiesof compensatory iscriminationnd tribalunity?Most of theinformationwe have on this topic comes from the Annual Reports of theCommissioneror cheduledCastes ndTribes nd variousReports ftheCommitteeon theWelfare f theScheduledCastes and ScheduledTribes CWSCST). In bothcases,publication ecame essassured n the 1980s than twaspreviously,o muchso that hedata setswehave renowhideously ated nd ncomplete.There s anotherstory o be toldhere, bout thewillingness fGovernment o collectand publishinformationor ertain urposes utnot for thers, utit is a story hatwillhavetobe toldelsewhere.)What emerges rom hesereportss a tale ofpromises nfulfilledand ofgovernmentuplicity.n Bihar, s elsewheren ndia,Scheduled ribalsfailedformanyyears o fill heir omplementsfgovernmenterviceobs,and mostofthejobs theyfilledwere n Class III and (more o) Class IV. The failure fSTs to gainClass and Class I jobs sexplained waybytheGovernmentnterms f ts tatutoryobligation o balancetheclaimsofcompensationgainst hoseof"efficiency."'"hefollowing tatement, adebytheMinistryf Finance n behalf ftheStateBankofIndia, s thusbynomeansexceptional: The Bankstated hat t is not n a position

'0The situationn the 1990s is probablynotas bleak as it was in the 1960s and 1970s,at least not in Bihar. The data I have collected n Jharkhand,nd which discuss shortly,suggest: a) that most Class II jobs for Ts arenow being filled n the first ound althoughthe number f such reserved oststhat has beenadvertised ecentlys low, notwithstandingthe factthat seniorgovernmentersonnel till refer o a shortage f suitablecandidates orhigher evel reserved osts); b) that manyholders f Class II jobs are proceeding o Class Ijobs in due course and muchearlier n their areers hanpeople in nonreservedosts:giventhe "shortage" f candidates orClass I jobs, it is not uncommon or he civil surgeon n aDistrict, or xample, o be younger hana civilassistant urgeonwhere he former ut notthe latterhas gained employmentwithin a reserved ategory); nd (c) that more STs arepresenting hemselves orClass I (including ndianAdministrativeervice, ndian PoliceSer-vice,and Indian Forest ervice osts)andClass II posts s schooling nd college systems aveimproved ocally. t should further e noted that n Centralpublic sectorundertakingsnBihar,Classes -IV ofemploymentre isted s GroupsA-D.


11/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 71

L A D E S H0

a. Damocicl: x

ccE2 Ez0 32

) OD. .. . ..

40 6 0co 0 05 % v,w %* 0. ... e W'*o P4cr.X.. . ...... . Q L > t-4

U ................. ............... V40006.. A o

CL 461CL Alpnco 'o

comCL 0 10 mE 0cX

m0 C3co go >'A 2 S- X IT,rCD 008el "6 mlMsim e8-j ZC X

0 0 0 0 4


12/25

72 STUART CORBRIDGE

to adopt the recommendationofreservation]n view of the fact hathavingregardto theneedto preserve ertainminimum tandards f efficiencynd in view of thefact hat he clerks n theStateBankof ndiaareconsidered or romotion s officersat early tages n their areer, hewaiving f theminimum ualifyingtandardn thewritten estwill not be in theinterest fthe nstitution"CWSCST, 18th Report,1973, 1).Beyond hisofficial ata we have surprisinglyittle vidence n local patterns fuptakeof ob reservationsn tribal ommunities.n part, hisreflectshe difficultiesinherentndesigning study hatwould nvestigateuchpatterns. ne wayofgoingabout the task is to visit the workplace o interview representativeample ofScheduledTribalswhohave achieved heirobs by meansofthe reservationsystem.Thus, one mightvisit,as I did in 1980, 1983, and 1993, government fficesndpublicsector ompanies ased nRanchi-Hatia, haibasa,Noamundi,Gua, Dhanbad,and Jamshedpur,nd question ribalrespondentsn wages earned, onuses llowed,qualifications ffered,ocialand geographical ackground, olitical ffiliations,ndso on. In 1980 and 1983 thequestionnaire as administeredn thecourse f muchbroaderprojectthat was concerned o understand he dynamics f economic ndpolitical change n India'sJharkhand;he data I collected n 1993 weregatheredwhile wasemployed n a project oncerned rincipally ithforestrynd migrationin theregion.)This approach ommends tself ecause t is easy to make contactwithSTs whohavegained obsvia thereservationsystem. was able to interviewmen andwomenwho worked n variousgovernment epartments,n "service," nd forcompaniesincludingthe Indian Iron and Steel Company as was), Indian Railways, ndianAirlines,State Bank of India, and the Heavy EngineeringCorporation. alsointerviewedribalsworking orprivate ector ompanies ike Tata Iron and SteelCompany nd Bata Shoes,but thiswas for omparative urposes hat re notalwaysrelevanthere. nterviewswith STs in the workplace or in tea shops and nearbyresidences)lsoproveduseful or ssessing hepolitical spirationsnd affiliationsfrespondents. verall, have collecteddata from132 interviewsonducted n thismanner.Most were onductedn 1980 and 1993, but in thetables hatfollow haveaggregated he dataexceptwhere here recompelling easons ot to do so."1

I havealso approached he matter fdata collection rom source-of-respondentperspective. he maindrawback ftheworkplace-based uestionnaires that t isdifficulto assessthe"initial ocialstanding" fa respondent. pecifically,t is hardto testtheproposition hatreservedobs are capturedby elitegroupswithintheScheduled ommunities. espondentsmightbe persuaded o sayhowmany cresofland their amily wns n a villagewhere heymayormaynot maintain residence,but thereliabilityftheir nswers s opento question even fone assumes hatthequestion s meaningful). imilardifficultiesrise whenone is interviewing tribalworkerwho comesfrom n urbanbackground.f one is properlyo testthe "elitemonopolization hesis," ne needs to conduct certain mountoffieldworkn thevillages/mohallas/chowksromwhichrespondents ail. But this s easier aid thandone.Forobviousreasons,t is notpractical omovebackwards rom respondent'sworkplaceohis or herresidence. espondents illrarely avethetimeor nclinationfor uch ourneys,nd even ftenwilling respondentsan be found he nterviewer

"Disaggregation of the data sets will be necessary or a planned second stage of thisresearch roject,whichwill focus athermoreon employment istories nd thepossible on-version f educational ualificationsntoreservedobs andpositions fpolitical nfluence.


13/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 73would likelybe draggedback to ten differentillagesor urban reas.The fieldworkhas, then, o be approached he otherway around.The interviewer ustsomehowgain familiarity itha sampleofvillagesfromwithinwhoseranksmen and womenemergewho havegainedreserved osts. uchmen nd women an thenbe interviewedin situ or at theirworkplace, nd some quite robustdata can be collectedon thefamily's conomic nd social standingn the stratified)ostcommunity.As chancewould have t, myresearch areer ince 1979 has allowedme to livefor ong periods n three tribal"villages n Singhbhum nd Ranchi DistrictsofBihar-three villages dominated by members of the Ho, Munda, and Oraoncommunities-and I have visiteda large numberof villages close-byforvarious"control" urposes.n thecourse fthese xtended eriods fresidencemostnotablyin 1980, 1983, and 1993), I was able to collect data on the compensatorydiscrimination/reservationsssue,having ecome nterestedn itwhenresearchingora doctoraldissertationn the "tribalquestion"and themovement ora separateJharkhandtate.Less extended esearch rips n 1981, 1986, 1994, 1996, and 1997have allowed meto add to mycoredatasets, o that now have nformationelatingto 72 men and womenfrommore han dozen tudy iteswho are,or who havebeen,in reservedobs or who have gained obs in the public sectorhaving first eceivedspecialeducational ssistance rom he state.In thediscussion hatfollows drawupona totalof 204 interviews.t shouldbenoted traight way that a total of 204 interviewss not the same as a total of 204households. he 204 intervieweesamefrom 85 households.Of thesehouseholds,fifteenontained wo memberswho had at one timebeen employedn jobs reservedfor cheduledTribals, nd two households ontained hreememberswhohad beensuccessfuln gainingpublicsector mployment. ccording o thecriteria developbelow, 13 of these17 "multiple"households elonged o a recognizableribal lite.Of these, ight were also firmly rban-based,n thesensethatfamilymembers idnot at any time n the calendaryear ontributeabor to farms hatmightor mightnot be maintainedn an ancestral illage.To put thisin context, nly 31 of theremaining168 householdscan be described as "urban" in this restrictedense(althoughmorethanhalfof thesamplepopulation s urban-basedn the moreusualsenseofworking rbeing ordinarilyesidentn a townorcity).

I will argue shortlyhat a good manyreservedobs in tribalSouth Bihar havebeencaptured ymembers f thetribalmiddle class orpettybourgeoisie,f not sodisproportionatelys to invite heword"monopolization." ut someclarificationsin orderbefore his arguments broached.Proponents fwhat I have called theideology ftribal conomy nd societyn India maintain hat ribal ommunitiesreundivided almost by definition. ribal communities eside in the remotehillyinteriorsf ndia (or at its northeasternrontiers)nd survive ymeans ofshiftingcultivation r a primitive lough agriculturehatcombines addycultivationwithlocal forest ependency. ribalcommunities ave their wn languages nd dialectsand areunusedto thewaysof themodernworld.Their survival ependsupontheircontinuing solation, ided by carefulgovernmentctions on their behalf.Moregenerally,There s nofunctional ifferentiationnthetribal ommunitys yet venin relation o suchbasicaspects ike thereligious, ocial, conomic ndpolitical.Thetribal is not yet used to the sectoralized pproachwhich is the distinguishingcharacteristicf modern dvanced ommunities. orexample,he cannotdistinguishbetween loan for onsumptionr for roduction urposes" Sharma 978, 531). Or,again, in the words of two noted American ommentators:to speak of levels offunctionsn tribal organization s hardlypossible because of pervasive galitarian


14/25

74 STUART CORBRIDGEpatterns" Schermerhorn978, 71); "In tribal ifethe principal inks for he wholesociety re based on kinship. ndividual quality s kinsman s assumed;dependencyand subordinationmong men are minimized.Agnaticbonds form he fundamentalweb, affinal ies are of lesser significance. ineages or clans tend to be the chiefcorporate nits;they re often heprincipal nitsfor andownership,or efense, oreconomic roduction nd consumption.ach manconsiders imselfntitled o equalrightswithevery ther" Mandelbaum1970, 576).Mandelbaum furthermaintains that whilst "Tribesmenare not averse toaccumulating ood tores, o deferringonsumptionandltomaximizing roductivity. . . they haracteristicallyeel that theseworthy ursuits hould not be pressed ohard s to nterfere ith heprompt rospect fpleasure" 1970, 581). In short, ribalsocietysdifferentMyronWeiner uggested hat ribal eople ook differentnd are:"A distinctive acial ype" Weiner1980, 1551). tsdominant ultural rinciplesrereflectedn its economic rganizationnways hat mphasize n attitude owards ifeand thefuture hich sextremelyontingentnd whichmaybe describeds "exotic."On this reading, he essenceoftribal ife s its all-night ancesand itsdhumkarias[youthdormitories:.As the 1962 (Dhebar) Reportof the Scheduled Castes andScheduledTribesCommission uts it: "It is difficultn thedrypagesof an officialreporto convey o thereader he zest for ife xpressedn tribal oetry nd dancing,the nstinct or olour nd pattern .[nevertheless} bove ll things, he ribal eopleare ntenselyovable and have fascinatedmostof thosewho have had anything o dowith them" Dhebar 1962, 20).

A fascination or things "tribal" may or may not be worthwhile, ut thisconstructionf "thetribal" s radicallytoddswith he ife-storiesfmany cheduledTribals n central ndia. Andre Beteille hinted t this n the mid-1970s, when hewrote f his first ield isit to an Oraonvillage n RanchiDistrict,Bihar:"I clearlyremembermy nitialdisappointmentn discovering hat, lthoughwe had come toinvestigate roper ribals, hepeoplewho confronteds wereoutwardly o differentfrom hepoorervillagers nemightfind nywheren ruralBihar or West Bengal"(Beteille 1974, 64; see alsoBaviskar 995).I will take issuelateron with the idea that "tribalness" s merelyonventional(and so unimportantr uninstructive),utmany f thequalitiesroutinelyttributedto theScheduled ribesofBihar re fictional.n villages hroughoutharkhandribalmenand women urvive s peasants nd even as agriculturalaborers.Not all tribalfamilieswn and nJharkhand,lthoughmostdo,andprivate ropertyseverywherethe norm. Some tribalfamilies wn and operatequite large landholdings by thestandards of dryland central India); others own and operate much smallerlandholdings.n each of the three illageswhere have ived for xtended eriods,wasabletodetect ndreport tribal anded lite. n thewesternringesfSinghbhumDistrict, here s evidence o suggest hat landedelite hademergednpartbecausesometribal amilies adgainedremunerativemploymentn theregion'sronminesin the1940s, 1950s,and 1960s. Manytribalsn theJharkhandave weatedhard ntheregion'smines nd quarries, otwithstandingterotypicaliews to thecontrary.Most tribals are also mobile. Tribal men and womenmigrateto surviveor toaccumulate. heycome ntocontactwithnontribalsn a dailybasis; ndeed, t is rareto find illages nJharkhandhat reexclusivelyribal.Theadivasis renot iving na splendidor primitivesolation.Moreover, herangeof tribalcontactswith "theoutside world" is fastexpanding.Despite governmenthetoric bout the need toprotect ribalpeople from corruptinganti)-civilization,he truth s thatthepushfordevelopment ince 1950 has brought actories,oads, nd outsiders oJharkhand


15/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 75Table 1. Scheduled ribals n Reserved obs,By Class andOrigin

Source-Based Work-Based TotalElite 40 29 69Nonelite 26 29 55Nil Returns 6 74 80Total 72 132 204Source:uthornterviews.inhuge numbersDas 1992). Tribal people havetried o get a slice ofthe ction, ndtribal ocietyhas doubtless hanged n the process-not that t was ever imelessnthewaythat t is sometimes ortrayedn the deology f tribal conomynd society.In short, tribalmiddleclass exists n Jharkhand.t is not a unitarymiddleclassand ttakes ndifferentolors ndifferentarts fJharkhand.n rural reas fRanchiDistrict,andand service ccupations re the best ndicators f class. n RanchiCitylevelsof ncome nd educationmay be better ndicators,long with religion.WhenI refero a tribalmiddle class in this study refer o a diversegroup ofmen andwomen who sharea lifestylemarkedly uperior o the majority f Jharkhandis(nontribalndtribal), nd who very ften mploy thers s laborers.Looking, hen, t the evidence have collected rom harkhandwhich uffers odoubtfrom eingcollected ver long period ftime, ndinthe ee ofother esearchprojects), wouldmakethefollowing bservations.irst, here sa significantumberofnil returnsseeTable 1). This is becausereliable nformationn "class" was morereadily btained rom he ource-basedampleof72 respondentshan t wasfromhework-based ampleof 132. Second, 69 of the 124 respondentsorwhomdata isavailable can be defined s belonging o a tribalmiddle class (55.6 percent). hiscompareswith tribalmiddleclassthat wouldputat 10 to 15 percent fthe tribalpopulationnRanchi ndSinghbhum istricts.Middle classSTs aregaining eservedjobs disproportionatelyor wo reasons.On theone hand, they regenerally ettereducated ndqualified hanother ribals.At thesametime,middle classtribals lsohave thecontacts nd social skills and sometimesmoney) hatare required o gainaccess to reserved mployment, articularlyn public sectorundertakings.everalrespondentsold me how theyhad acquiredreservedobs through xtendedkinnetworks r by forged aperworknd outright ribery. lthoughreservedobs inBiharhaveto be advertised y meansof a notificationrder, his nformations notreadily vailableto ruralJharkhandis. ord ofmouth ndpersonal ontactsmattergreatly,nd not leastforClass III jobs such as officelerks, oresters,nd assistantsubinspectorsfpolice. 2

12CraigJeffreyasuncovered ribes fup to 60,000 rupees or lass II jobs nthereservedcategory n MeerutDistrict,UttarPradesh; ersonal ommunicationnd Jeffrey999. I haveyet to hear of bribes n excessof 15,000 rupees n Jharkhand, ut I have not pressed n thisissue as carefully r as insistentlys Jeffrey.t is clear that there s an active "market" nReservedJobs n Jharkhand.t is also clear that the returns o holders f Reserved obs forexample, orest uardsor police constables) an warrant izeable nitialpayments or ccess othe society f reservedobs. I cannot stimatewith nydegree f accuracywhatpercentage fReservedJobs are allocated through systemwhichJamesScott once described s "marketcorruption,"ut I would notethatnotall jobs areallocated n this basis. Although did notpushall orevenmostofmy respondentsn how theygained their osts, nd while t is truethatone would need to treat ny replieswithcaution will people admit to offering bribe?),


16/25

76 STUART CORBRIDGEThird,this mbalance n respect f class s even moremarkedwhen t comes togender.Only 36 ofmy204 ST respondents erewomen 17.6 percent). his is an

interestingnd worrying inding. vidence rom hree tribal"villages uggests hatthe percentage fST girlsgoing to college s only lightly ess than thepercentageof ST boysgoing to college 12 percent ersus15 percent). ollege Principals avealso confirmedhisbroadpicturen interviews.he bias against ribalwomenwouldseem to emanate ess from ribal ociety which s often ess male-dominated hancasteHindu societyKelkar nd Nathan19911),thanfrom atekeeperso the ocietyofreservedobs."3Fourth, hecapture f reservedobs by middleclass STs has not been opervasivethat ess affluent ribalshave no hope of landing a reservedob. To the contrary:almosthalf he obs available eem o be goingto ess ffluentribalmen andwomen),and my interviews uggest that for such individuals success in education andcompetitivexaminationss thekey.Several nformantsoldme that heyhadgainedquite well-paid and securegovernmentobs havingfirst een the beneficiariesfpostmatriculationcholarshipsn localcolleges.Manyofthese nformantsad startedlife n rural reas and had since movedto towns nd cities forworkorpermanentresidence. Most of them owed their success to a state-sponsored ystemofcompensatorydiscriminationthat was and is working reasonably well,notwithstandinghe existence fa tribalmiddle class whereno such elitegroupingwas supposedto exist. ndeed,and perhaps urprisingly,oorerbutwell-educatedtribals rommongstmy amplepopulations rerelatively orerepresentedn ClassII jobs than n Class IV jobs. Given smallsamplesizes it is perhapsunwiseto readtoo much nto this finding, ut the qualitative ata have collected eemtoconfirmtheviewthatmembers f middleclass tribal amilies re more asilyplaced n ClassIV jobs (constables, orest uards,drivers, weepers, ardeners,nd the ike)than nClassII jobs Block Development fficers,ead of police station)where ducationalachievementsre more losely crutinized. o the limited) xtent hat hildren rompoorST (andSC [Nambissan 19961)families an accessgovernmentr morerarely)private/mission-sponsoredducation,o alsocanthey opetogainaccess oreasonablywell-paidgovernmentobs in lateryears.14severalof my respondentsnsisted hat theyhad not had to pay a bribeor commission oacquire a post in governmentervice, r, moreespecially, n a public sector ndertaking.nthis regard, t least,my findingsor suspicions) allywith thoseofJonathan arryn respectof hisstudy f reservedobs inBhilai, MadhyaPradesh.Parry eports hat,while twould "berash to deny that retail corruption as grownover the past thirty ears, am neverthelessstruckby a certaindisjunctionbetweenthe belief n, and the actual evidencefor, ts all-pervasiveness. ven where t is reputedlymostrampant here rethosewho resistt;and eventhough t is an article ffaith hatyou cannot et a job with he argest ublic sector mployerin the area without ayingfor t, there s reason o supposethatmostof thosewho have suchjobs did not do so" (Parry 999, 28)."3Again,urtheresearchs neededhere. t mightbe argued hat he high evels fgenderequality ssociatedwithST communitiess a myth, nd/orhat ribal ocieties re ess "tribal"than theyhave commonly een portrayed. n observedgender mbalance n the society freservedobs might hen eflectignificanthifts ithin ribal ociety.tmight e,for xample,that a tribal middle class is keen to promote hemarriageabilitynd not employability ffemales s a way of boostinghousehold tatus.But I doubt this s the case. What evidencehave suggests hattribalwomen re better epresentedn Class III jobs than n Class IV jobs.This reflects he fact hat Class IV jobs-gardeners, cooks,clerks, eons, and thelike-arestillcoded as "male" jobs; ironically, erhaps,obs demandingmorequalificationsre codedas more ender-neutral.ribalwomen ertainly indthard o gettheir eet nthe mploymentladder.


17/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 77The suggestionthat some (mainly male) STs have benefitted rom stateeducational r employmentolicieswillsurpriseomeobserversf "tribal" ndia. In

recent ears, he critique ftribal ssentialismhatbeganwiththe workof Beteilleandothers asbeentakenmuchfurthery contemporaryistoriansike CrispinBates(1994) and AjaySkaria 1992). Batescontends ot so much thattribal ommunitiesare nternallyividedor subjectto different echanismsf counting/Schedulingythe tate, utrather hat henineteenth-centuryerm ribal ndthe wentieth-centuryterm adivasi are each recent inventions.These words created "aboriginal"/"indigenous" opulations s convenient ictionshathave "overthegenerations..remade Indial in the image nvented or t byEuropean olonialists"Bates 1994,104). Less opaquely,we are faced n Bates'sworkwith powerfuleworkingf omeof the same ideasmobilizedbyRonald Inden.Just s Inden refuseshesuggestionthatthe statehas sponsored ealdevelopmentn independentndia, so does Batesrefuse he suggestion hat ndia's tribalpopulations orrespondo some authenticautochtonous opulations hatwere later displacedfrom heplains by theAryaninvaders. ates argues hat: In realityhemajorityf divasis ivedcomfortableives,at eastuntil hecolonialperiod, aving ontrol ver arge reas f and,having rmies,anaristocracy,ax collection,nd udicial ystemsfone sort ranother"1994, 109).Themodern overtyf ribal opulationss thus recentreation;here snothingprimordial rprimitiveboutthe backwardnessfmany ribalpopulations.t thenfollows,or ates, hatpost-1950 ttemptsouplift ribal ommunitiesre nattentiveto theebband flow ftribal ortunesver ime nd across pace.Particular ocial andeconomic ommunities et listedas "tribal" becausethey repoor,and a seriesofstock haracteristicsreattributedo them o that tribal dentitys created,hapedbythe state nd setin aspic.Bates concludes ymaking wokeypoints.He argues,first,hat he tate's ttemptst "positive iscriminationas withmost instrumental'effortst socialengineering) avenotsolved butmerely ggregated he problem f... prejudicewithinndiansociety" 1994, 106). Second, nd moregenerally, atesargues hat hecasualuseofwords iketribe nd adivasi: wouldnotbe [of}anyharmbutfor hefact hatmanyof theprejudices nd misconceptionsssociatedwiththeorigins f the term[sJ avepersisted s well." Further, It is arguablethatadivasileadersand ideologuesare not innocent f this, and that the veryform f theiridentificationnd the trajectoryf theirpoliticalstruggle erveto reinforceatherthancontradictheprejudices irected gainst hem" 103).These are powerful rguments nd theybear directlyon the issues underdiscussionhere. Bates is right o directour attention o thepossibility hat tribalpoliticalmovementshould eek mpowermentydeconstructingnddisavowinghecategories f tribaland adivasi that are instrumentaln reproducing atterns fdiscriminationgainst"tribal"communities. his act of deconstruction/disavowalwould beakintocalls fromnden nd others or discoursef lternativeevelopmentthat eschewsthe category f Development as modernization)nd the conceptual

141 have not collecteddata systematicallyn this ssue, but recent ieldworknclinesmeto the viewthat ST householdswho havegained access to government r public-sectorobsare lso ina strongerosition o deal with ther overnmentgencies. amcurrentlyeviewingthis ssue with Sanjay Kumar) n relation o a selection f villages hat re partof the U.K.-fundedEastern ndia RainfedFarmingProject EIRFP). Initialevidence uggests hat thereare strongnetworks f associationbetweenSTs who hold governmentobs and panchayatsevaks, orest uards, r even bankofficials.uite a number f theyoungmenor womenwhoact as jankarsvolunteersr ink-persons)or heEIRFP come from amilieswhere householdmemberholds a governmentob.


18/25

78 STUART CORBRIDGEframeworkshat ustain t. But herein lso lies the weakness f Bates's position, s Isee it. Bates's arguments sustained mpirically ithreferenceo recentlyffluenttribalkingdomsn Bastarand the Nilgiri Hills. Having once suggested hattribalfortunes avewaxed and waned within historicalmemory, ates is able to argueagainst he fixityf categoriesike adivasi nd ST in the present.I am notconvinced, owever,hat uchan argument an be extended o Bihar,where patterns f community xploitation nd discrimination eem to be moreentrenched. here is a dangerin Bates's work,as in Inden's, that one formofessentialismubstitutesor nother.'5 am also notpersuaded ythepolitical ogicsthatBatesdeploys, lthough am sympathetico some aspects f his widerpoliticalproject.Batesclearly akesthepartof ndia's "tribals" o theextent hatthey ufferfromnstitutionalizedatternsfdiscriminationndexploitation.ut Bates uggests,or seemsto suggest, hat divasi eaders and their ollowers)rebeing disingenuouswhenthey eekempowerments adivasis r tribals. doubttheyhave much choice.I would contendnotonlythata significantumber f tribalshave gained from hepoliciesofcompensatoryiscriminationn offer rom hestate albeita second-bestsystem f ob allocation nd creation), ut alsothatmany ribalshavebeen uccessfulin mounting broader ritique f development rogramsn theJharkhand-ifnotof (D)evelopment itself-in part on the basis of a tribal political identity.Significantly,his tribal political identity s farfromfixed n Jharkhand, ut isregularlyeinvented y Jharkhandi olitical eaders s circumstancesequire. n the1950s JaipalSingh's Jharkhand artywas largelyuncritical f thedevelopmentalambitions f theNehruvian tate.TheJharkhandartywanted separate harkhandState withinwhich tribalswould moreeasilyappropriatehebenefits f ndustrialdevelopment.n the1980sand 1990s,a lessunitary harkhand ovement assoughttobuildJharkhands a statefor ribal ndnontribal harkhandisagainst ost-1950/55 dikus).To thisextentthas refused neat tribal/nontribaloundary. t the ametime,some in the Jharkhandmovementhave campaignedfor a more inclusiveJharkhandtateby suggesting hat all Jharkhandis ightwant to draw upon theecological nd cultural raditionsf ocal tribal ommunitiesDevalle 1992; Parajuli1996).It is notpossible osaymuch ndetailhere boutJharkhandiolitics seeMunda1988; Keshari1983). On the pecific ointoftribal dentities nd political ctivities,however,heempiricalmaterials have collected eem to refutehesuggestion hattribalparticipationn the reservationsystem ullsthe capacity or more ustainedcritiqueofthecausesoftribalpovertynd exploitation. able 2 suggests hat theopposite s more ikely o be the case. Of 204 respondents,24 (60.8 percent) rommy"reservedT" samplesaid theyhad either otedfor r campaigned or ctivistswithin heJharkhand ovement.Most respondentslaimedto be supportersf theJharkhandause,but thistells us very ittle. t is importantn studiesofpoliticalaffiliationnd identity o seek out evidenceof active or committedupportfor

15I am minded here of Nicholas Dirks's comments n the threatened irthof a neworientalism hat is ahistorical r even antihistorical. irks states that: "Said writes boutorientalism s if t transcendsheexigencies fhistory,xemptingtof ts necessarilyontin-gentrelations o histories fnationalism nd colonialism, enderingt as a totalizingmonolith"(Dirks 1992, 74). As for rientalism, o also forDevelopment nd the Colonial Mind. For arecent ccountof colonialism's ulture(s)whichrefuses uch hard) essentialism,ee Thomas1994. For n interestingefense f "soft ssentialism"n the ocial sciences, nd for critiqueofan essentialised ntiessentialism,ee Sayer1997.


19/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 79Table 2. Reserved obs nd PoliticalAttitudes n Jharkhand

STsinreservedobs STsnot nreservedobs(total= 204) (total= 100)Supportedharkhandause 189 92.659%) 81 (81.00%)Campaignedor harkhand 124 60.78%) 42 (42.00%)Voted or harkhandioliticians 75 (36.76%) 25 (25.00%)Jharkhandictivistelectoral) 21 (10.29%) 5 (5.00%)Jharkhandictivistnonelectoral) 11 5.39%) 3 (3.00%)Opposed oJharkhandause 8 (3.92%) 11 11.00%)Nil returns 7 (3.43%) 8 (8.00%)Source: uthornterviews.political cause.)This compares o just 42 percent f a control roup of tribalsnotworkingn reservedobs (thedatabeingaccumulated ver hesametimeperiod).Now this is a verycrudeway of measuring olitical support,but the broadconclusions hatmightbe drawnfrom able 2 were lso confirmedn thecourse fa largenumber f extended nterviews.everal espondentsold me thattheir ctivesupport or heJharkhand ause followed heir nductionnto a reservedob. Mostalso made t clearthat hey ee theJharkhand ovement,till, s a tribalmovement,even f t has thesupport f somenontribals.16ome respondentsvenadvanced heview that hestate orthe State s a territorialnit)had to be captured oliticallynthesamewaythatSTs had captured ome abormarkets.n almost ll cases gainedthestrong mpressionhat uccess n thesphere freservationsad encouraged otha sensethat otherprivate) abormarkets emained ut of ST control, nd that STscouldandshould oin togetheroseekcontrol ver hese abormarkets. hepreferredvehiclefor hispoliticswas and is theJharkhand ovement, movementhat eeksto validate ocal political dentities gainst"Bihar" and thedikus,but which alsodrawsupon stateprograms or the "protection" f STs to sustainthis politicalideology.

In sum,myrespondents anted tbothways.Manyof themwouldfirstescribethemselves s Oraons or Mundas or Hos, but then as STs or as adivasis.Thegovernment-inspiredcronyms sticking nd is wornwithpride.At the sametime,manyofthesesamepeoplewanted more than ust to be the beneficiariesf statelargesse.They understood erywell thatwell-paid obs in the private ector regenerally enied to STs, and that realpower nJharkhandies in nontribal ands.Theywantednot ustto colonize he owerreaches f thestate,butto takecommandof a territorialtate, Jharkhand, ortheirmore general empowerment. s onerespondent ut it: "I amhappy o have a job as a I . . . Class III jobi. Tatas will nothireus tribals xcept s sweepersnottrue,buta widelyheld view n Singhbhum:,so I am pleased to work for [thel government.Government akes care of me.Governmentivesme chuttileave/holidayl.ut it is notmy government;t is thedikus' overnment.overnmentobsshouldnotbe [thelonly ption.This ismy andand it is tribalswho shouldbe givingout jobs. That is why nowcampaignforJharkhand. he governmentwesus wealth,not ust obs."

'6I will notdiscuss ere heBharatiyaanata arty's lans or (nontribal)tate fVan-anchal n theBihar art fJharkhand.


20/25

80 STUART CORBRIDGE

ConclusionThis paper has advanced womainarguments. mpirically, have tried o showthatthe reservationsystem n tribalBihar has workedmore uccessfullyhan omecommentators avedeemed ikely. n itsown terms, hepresent ystem f reservedjobs is flawedn three espects:t is notworking o the advantage f tribalwomen,itis working o thedisproportionatedvantage fmembers fthetribalmiddle lass,and it is stillfailing o deliverClass I or even Class II jobs to STs in the mannerdesired ytheframersf the Constitutionalthough ertainmprovementsavebeenmade sincethemid- to late-1970s).Nevertheless,argenumbers fSTs inBiharhavegained reasonably ell-paid nd secure obs through he reservationsystem, nd it

is significanthat membersof nontribal ommunities ike the Nayaks have onoccasions ought opass themselves ff s "tribal"togain access to reservedobs. Itis also the case thateducated ribals rom ruralbackground ave made progress-and do make progress-through he reservedobs system.'7 T men and women anand do progress romClass IV to Class III jobs, the more so now thatthere s aneffectiveystem f rostering. alanter s right o describe he reservationsystemnIndia as a system f "competing qualities" thatweighsthe constitutionalights fequal and sovereignndividuals gainst hevery eal nequalities hat xistbetweenIndian social groups.Galanterhimself s inclinedto endorse he compromisehatresults nd todefendt against riticism rom olitical ympathizersfboththeLeftand Right.Formy part, am inclined o supportGalanter.The reservationsystemin India canbe defendedn liberalor Rawlsiantermswithout tsdefendersurninga blind eye to the deficiencies f the system s it exists. Some inequalities rereproducedwithin target constituenciesby India's system of compensatory

17Letme be clear on this point. It is not my intention n this paper to suggestthat asufficientlyarge number fSTs havegained reservedobs so as fundamentallyo alterthenature f abormarkets nd community elationsn Bihar'sJharkhand. f coursenot:for very1,000 STs in reservedobs theremust be almost 100,000 not so employed.But this s notwhat s at issue here. n thispaper am notarguing hatthe reservationsystems a panaceaforSTs excludedfrom rivate abormarkets r lockedintothe so-called nformalector femployment; amrather rguing hatpublic-sectorobs in India aregreatly ought fter ndthatmore ribals re gaining ccessto reserved ublic-sector/governmentervice obs in Biharthan some critics f the system f reservations ightthink ikely. am furtherrguing hattribals rom nonelite ackground ave been able to access significant umber f these obswhere heyhavefirst cquired formal ducation. n this respectt is interestingo comparemy findingsn Biharwith thoseofJan Breman n Gujarat. AlthoughBreman s well knownfor rguing hatproletarianizedribalHalpatis nGujarat re systematicallyrozen ut of ocallabor market pportunities y employers een tobring nmigrantabour othe Suratregion,he also acknowledges hat members f the partially roletarianized hodhiya tribal)com-munityhave fared ather etter, sing theirremaining and rights o access educational p-portunitiesnd jobs for omechildren. remanwrites hat"one element fthisprogramme[of positivediscrimination]s the reservationf obs in the public sector n order o helpthetarget roup to make up for heir ocial backwardness. uring the ast fewdecades the seriesofmeasures aken for Cs andSTsl intheframeworkf his ttempttpositive iscriminationhave enabledyounger hodhiyas rom hikhligamvillagel n particular o becomeupwardlymobile.Theiradvance has invariably eenprecededby someyears feducation.Equippedwithschool-leaving ertificatesheyhavebeen able topenetratentothe owerranks f gov-ernment ureaucracynd theteaching rofession,o become bank clerks r to workfor herailways r post office. ducation has also helped the Dhodhiyas to qualifyforpermanentemploymentnthe arge-scalendustries hichhavesprung p intheregion" Breman1996,179).


21/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 81discrimination,ut thisneedsto be weighed againstthedirect employment) ndindirect political identity) ffects f reservation n the competing nequalitiesbetween arget nd nontarget opulations. triking balance s no easymatter, utthe increasinglyoud protests gainst reservation oming from ndia's high-castecommunitiesell their wnstory.A second rgument asthreadedtsway through hepaperand concernswhatwill call the"deconstructionisturn" nwritingsbout modernndianpolitics.Thefocus f this rguments the workofRonald ndenandCrispinBates. Both authorshaveproduced elling ritiques f themodernizingnd normalizingmbitions fthepost-Independencetate n India,and bothdrawheavily n thework fFoucault.Asregards tribal ndia," Inden suggests hat ndia's attachments o a transcendentalconception f Developmenthas riddenroughshod verthe legitimatevoices andaspirationsf ndia's dispossessed.ndia'sScheduledTribeshavebeenemptied utofmany f theirnative andstomakewayfor hefalse odofDevelopment, orNehru'sFactories nd Dams (and not least in Jharkhand). he STs have also beenworkedupon by various agenciesof the state to secure theirdocile integrationnto thesupposedmainstreamf ndian life.Bates,forhispart,beingmoreofa student fIndia's tribes, as paid ratheress attention o the normalizingnstincts fthe ndianstate, ndrathermore ttention o the tate's apacity oinvent tribal" ommunitiesand thus inadvertently?)o secure theircontinuing ominationwithindiscursivepractices hich or hemostpartdespise ribalways f ife. orBates, deconstructionof "tribalness"s a preconditionor o-called ribal eoples ecuringheir ealfreedomandequalitywithother ocialgroups.Thesearepowerful rguments,s I havetried o make clear.At the sametime,I find hem ach to be deficient o theextent hat hey ssentialize hepowers f thestateand the nnocence/incapacityf ndia's tribalpopulations. he empiricalworkdiscussed n thispaper suggests morenuancedreading fstate/tribalelationshipsthanis offeredy Indenor Bates. Inden's work reinforcesxistingviews of tribalsocieties s undivided nd as somehowopposedto boththe joys and thepain ofmodernity.Within thisexplanatoryystem hestatemust nevitably e seen as anagentofdestruction;he statedestroyshe assumed) neness nd integrityf ndia'sindigenous opulations, nd imposeson thesepopulations model of Developmentwhichseemingly ffers othing o them. t is a model that is inattentiveo theformation fa tribalmiddle class in areas ikeJharkhand,argely s a result fanearlier ound fmining nd industrialization,nd whichfails o consider hatmanytribalfamilies ave been inclined o seize the opportunities adeavailableto themby public-andprivate-sectorponsoredndustrialization.This is not to suggest, fcourse, hat ribal eoplearepleasedto see their andsacquiredfor ams orfactories,but nor remostnontribal eople n the samecircumstances).As regardsBates, althoughthe detail of his workdemandsa differentet ofempirical esponses,t a deeper evel it invokesforme several fthemisgivingshaveoutlined nrespect f nden.Specifically,heres withinBates'swork tendencyto assume hatbecause hecategoriesf"tribe" nd"adivasi" resocially onstructedand temporally luid in somepartsof India), so it mustfollowthatattempts omobilizepoliticallyround hese ictionsreboth nnocentnddisabling.On balance,I disagree. would ratherrguetwopoints hat utagainst hegrainof omeaspectsof Bates's argument. irst,the constructionf tribal communities s STs in theConstitution f ndia, 1950, and thereafter,asmadethiscategory-and dentity-ratheress fluid hanBates suggests. econd,myreading ftheJharkhand ovementsuggests hatmanySTs are well informeds to the bases of theirdomination,nd


22/25

82 STUART CORBRIDGE

have mobilizedpoliticallynways hatoffer hem realistic hanceof essening hisdomination. rudely ut (and contranden), the key to Jharkhandi oliticshas beena willingness o contest he stateby colonizing he state/State.harkhandioliticalleaders nd their STI supporters ave had some success, hrough he reservationssystem,naccessing omeofthe benefitsfmodernisationn ndia's resourceriangle.ContraBates, t is hard to see thatgiving up ST statuswould have heapedgreaterrewards pon the region's oor.In the early 1990s the Jharkhandmovement ushed once more for he centralgovernmento declare separate harkhandtatewithin hefederal epublic f ndia.It is a measure f the movement's uccess hatthe governmentgreed o the settingup ofa Jharkhand utonomousArea Council nAugust 1995. Ifthe Council s nowdefunct, nd was in anycase dominatedby nominees ftheGovernment fBihar,few andeny hat hestruggle gainstdomination ontinues. ribal menand womenin the Jharkhand re using the state's machineries f normalizationScheduling,reservations)oth to demand morefrom he stateand to pressfor newterritorialarrangementhat recognizes heirright to be different.ust like Development,Compensatoryiscriminationnd Tribalness re oded nddecodedbydifferentocialgroups n radically ifferent ays.

List of ReferencesAMBEDKAR, B. R. 1945. Annihilationf Castes,with Reply o MahatmaGandhi.Bombay:BharatBhushanPress.AUSTIN, G. 1993. "The Constitution,ociety, nd Law." Chapter in ndiaBriefing,1993, editedby Philip Oldenburg.Boulder,Colo.: WestviewPress.BAHL, V. 1995. TheMaking f he ndianWorkinglass:TheCase of heTata Iron ndSteel o., 1880-1946. Delhi: Sage.BATES, CRISPIN. 1994. " 'Lost Innocents nd the Loss of nnocence': nterpretingAdivasiMovementsnSouthAsia." Chapter in ndigenouiseoples fAsia,editedbyR. H. Barnes,A. Gray, ndB. Kingsbury. nnArbor,Mich.: Association orAsian Studies.

.1995. "Race, Caste and Tribe n Central ndia: theEarlyOriginsof ndianAnthropometry."hapter7 in The ConceptfRace n SouthAsia, edited by P.Robb. Delhi: OxfordUniversity ress.BAVISKAR, AMITA. 1995. In theBelly f heRiver: ribalConflictsver evelopmentntheNarmadaValley. elhi: OxfordUniversityress.BERGER, M. 1995. "Post-WarCapitalism:Modernization nd Modes of Resistanceafter heFall." ThirdWorldQuarterly6:717-28.BERMAN, MARSHALL. 1982. All That Is Solid Melts ntoAir: The ExperiencefModernity.ondon:Verso.BETEILLE, ANDRE. 1965. Caste,Class andPower: hangingatternsf tratificationn

a Tanjore illage.Berkeley: niversityf California ress..1974. Six EssaysnComparativeociology.elhi: OxfordUniversityress.BOURDIEU, PIERRE. 1984. Distinction: SocialCritique ftheJudgementfTaste.London:Routledge ndKeganPaul.BRASS, PAUL. 1994. The Politics f ndia Since ndependence,nd ed. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.BREMAN, JAN. 1996. Footloose abour: Workingn India's Informal conomy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.


23/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 83CAD. Constituent ssembly ebates. Government f ndia. 1946-49. Debates f heConstituentssemblyf ndia, 1-9. New Delhi: Governmentf ndia Press.CHANDRA, KANCHAN. 2000. "Rising ScheduledCastes: Explaining heSuccessofthe Bahujan Samaj Party." ournal fAsian Studiesthisvolume).CORBRIDGE, STUART. 1988. "The Ideology fTribalEconomy nd Society: oliticsin theJharkhand,950-1980." Modern sian Studies 2:1-42.. 1993. "Ousting Singbonga: heStruggle or ndia's Jharkhand."hapterinDalit Movementsnd theMeanings fLabourn ndia,editedbyP. Robb. Delhi:OxfordUniversity ress.. 1998. "'Beneath the Pavement only Soil': The Poverty of Post-Development."JournalfDevelopmenttudies 4:138-48.CORBRIDGE, STUART, andJOHN HARRISS. 2000. Reinventingndia:Liberalization,

HinduNationalismnd Popular emocracy.ambridge: olityPress.COWEN, M., andR. SHENTON. 1996. Doctrinesf evelopment.ondon:Routledge.CWSCST. Governmentf ndia.Reportsf he ommitteen heWelfaref cheduledastesandSchedzuledribesvarious).New Delhi: Governmentf ndia.DAS, A. 1992. TheRepublicfBihar.Delhi: Penguin.DEVALLE, SUSANA B. C. 1992.Discoursesf thnicity:ulturendProtestnJharkhand.Delhi: Sage.DHEBAR, U. N. (chairman). 962. Report f he cheduledastes nd ScheduledribesCommission.ew Delhi: Governmentf ndia.DIRKS, NICHOLAS. 1992. "Castesof Mind."Representations7:56-78.ELWIN, V. 1960. "Beating Dead Horse." Seminar 4:25-28.ESCOBAR, A. 1995. Encounteringevelopment:heMaking nd Unmakingf heThirdWorld. rinceton: rinceton niversityress.FULLER, C. J., ed. 1996. CasteToday.Delhi: OxfordUniversityress.GALANTER, MARC. 1991. Competingqualities: awandthe ackward lasses n ndia.Delhi: OxfordUniversity ress.GHURYE, G. S. 1980. TheScheduledribes. ew Brunswick, .J.:Transaction.Governmentf ndia various ears)AnnualReportsf he ommissionerf cheduledastesand Scheduledribes. ew Delhi.Governmentf the UnitedKingdom. 1935. Parliamentaryebates: fficialeport,thSeries, olumes99-301. London.GUHA, RAMACHANDRA. 1999. SavagingheCivilized:Verrierlwin,His Tribals ndIndia.Chicago: Chicago Universityress.HANSEN, THOMAS BLOM. 1999. The affron ave:DemocracyndHinduNationalisminModernndia. Princeton: rinceton niversityress.INDEN, RONALD. 1990. Imaginingndia.Oxford: lackwell.1995. "ImperialProgresseso National Progressesn India." EconomyndSociety4:245-78.JAFFRELOT,HRISTOPHE.2000. "TheRise oftheOtherBackward lasses nNorth

IndianPolitics."JournalfAsian Studiesthisvolume).JALAL,AYESHA. 1995. Democracynd Authoritarianismn SouthAsia: A ComparativePerspective.ambridge:CambridgeUniversityress.JEFFREY, CRAIG. 1999. "ReproducingDifference: he Investment ecisions ofRicherJat Farmers n MWerut istrict,Uttar Pradesh, ndia." Ph.D. diss.CambridgeUniversity.JOSHI, VIJAY,and . M D . LITTLE. 1994. India:MacroeconomicsndPolitical conomy,1964-1991.Washington .C.: WorldBank.


24/25

84 STUART CORBRIDGE

KAVIRAJ, . 1991. "On State, Society and Discourse in India." Chapter 4 inRethinkinghirdWorld olitics,ditedbyJ.Manor.Harlow:Longman.KELKAR, GOVIND, and DEv NATHAN. 1991. Gendernd Tribe:Women,andandForestsnjharkhand.New Delhi: Kali forWomem.KESHARI, B. P. 1983. Jharkhand ndolan i Vastavikta. anchi: Prakash.LAL, M. 1983. TheMundaElite.New Delhi: Harnam.MANDELBAUM, D. G. 1970. Societyn India. 2 volumes. Berkeley:University fCalifornia ress.MITRA, S. ed. 1990. Politics fPositive iscrimination: CrossNationalPerspective.Bombay:Popular.MUNDA, R. D. 1988. "TheJharkhand ovement:RetrospectndProspect." ocialChange 8:28-58NAMBISSAN,G. 1996. "Equity nEducation? chooling fDalit Childrenn ndia."Economicnd PoliticalWeekly0-27 April: 011-24.NEHRU, J. 1955. "The Tribal Folk." In The Adivasis.New Delhi: Government fIndia.PARAJULI,P. 1996. "Ecological Ethnicity n the Making: DevelopmentalistHegemonies nd Emergentdentities n India." Department fAnthropology,Syracuse niversity. imeographed.PARRY,J. 1996. "No mother r fatherike t: theBhilaisteelplant ncentral ndia."Department fAnthropology,ondonSchool of Economics.Mimeographed.. 1999. "The 'crisis f corruption'nd the dea of ndia': a worm's yeview"Department f Anthropology,ondonSchool of Economics.Mimeographed.PHADNIS, U. 1989. EthnicityndNation-Buildingn South sia. Delhi: Sage.SCHERMERHORN,R. A. 1978. Ethnic luralityn India. Tucson: University fArizonaPress.SCOTT, JAMES.1998. Seeing ike a State:How Certain chemeso mproveheHumanCondition ave Failed.New Haven,Conn.: Yale Universityress.SEN, A. 1992. Inequality eexamined.xford:OxfordUniversityress.SENGUPTA,N., ed. 1982. FourthWorld ynamics:harkhand.elhi: AuthorsGuild.SHAH, A. 1996. "JobReservationndEfficiency."hapter10 inCaste: ts TwentiethCentury vatar, ditedbyM. N. Srinivas.New Delhi: Penguin.SHAH, G. 1991. "Social BackwardnessndthePolitics fReservations." conomicandPoliticalWeekly6 (11 and 12).SHARMA, B. D. 1978. "AdministrationorTribalDevelopment."ndian ournal fPublicAdministration3:515-39.SIMMONS, C. 1976. "Recruitingndorganisingn industrialabourforcencolonialIndia: the case of the coal mining ndustry,. 1880-1939." IndianEconomicndSocialHistoryeview 3:455-85.SIVARAMAYYA, B. 1996. "The Mandal Judgement:A BriefDescriptionandCritique." Chapter 13 in Caste: ts Twentiethentury vatar, ditedbyM. N.

Srinivas.New Delhi: Penguin.SKARIA, AJAY.1992. "A Forest olicy nWestern ndia: TheDangs, 1800s-1920s."Ph.D. diss.CambridgeUniversitySKRENTNY,J. 1995. The roniesfAffirmativection. hicago:UniversityfChicagoPress.SPILLMAN, L. 1996. "'Neither the Same Nation nor DifferentNations':Constitutional onventionsn theUS and Australia." omparativetudiesn Societyarnd istory 8: 149-81


25/25

COMPETING INEQUALITIES 85SUDARSHAN, R. 1994. "The PoliticalConsequences f Constitutional iscourse."Chapter in State ndNation n theContextf ocialChange, ol. 1, editedbyT.

Sathyamurthy.elhi: OxfordUniversityress.THOMAS, NICHOLAS. 1994. Colonialism'sCulture:Antbropology,ravel andGovernment.ambridge: olity.TOYE, J. 1993. Dilemmas f Development:eflectionsn theCounter-RevolutionnDevelopmentheorynd Policy. nd ed. Oxford:Blackwell.VANAIK, A. 1990. ThePainful ransition:ourgeoisemocracyn ndia.London:Verso.WEINER, MYRON. 1980. Sons f he oil. Princeton: rinceton niversityress.YADAV, YOGENDRA. 1997. "Reconfigurationn Indian Politics:State AssemblyElections1993-1995." Chapter in State nd PoliticsnIndia,editedbyParthaChatterjee. elhi: OxfordUniversityress.

corbridge competing inequalities

Documents