Question

how tribe is distinguish from caste
​

Answer 1

Answer:here ur answer hope it's helpful

Explanation:On the basis of religion, it is said that the religion of tribals is Ani­mism and that of the people with caste system is Hinduism. Hutton (1963) and Bailey (1960:263) believe that tribals are not Hindus but are animists. The basic characteristics of animism are the beliefs that all ani­mate and inanimate objects are permanently or temporarily inhabited by spirits; all activities are caused by these spirits; spirits have power over the lives of men; men can be possessed by spirits; and they can be influenced by magic.

On the other hand, the chief characteristics of Hinduism are dharma, bhakti, karma and rebirth. It will be wrong to say that the Hin­dus, particularly the lower caste Hindus, do not believe in spirits and ghosts or in magic and possession.

Similarly, there are many tribals who worship Hindu gods and goddesses, celebrate Hindu festivals and fairs and observe Hindu customs, traditions and rituals. It is, therefore, not easy to distinguish between Animism and Hinduism. Elwin (1943), Risley (1908) and Ahuja (1965) have also maintained that the distinction between Hinduism and Animism is artificial and meaningless. Religion as a single criterion, thus, cannot be used to distinguish between a tribe and a caste. Ghurye, Naik and Bailey have also rejected this criterion.

On geographical isolation basis, it is said that tribals live in geographi­cally isolated regions like hills, mountains and jungles but caste Hindus live in the plains. Due to isolation and negligible contacts with their ‘ civilised) neighbours, tribals are comparatively less civilised than the Hindus. Though it is true that at one time some tribals lived away from means of communication yet many caste Hindus also lived in isolated regions, while many tribals lived in plains. In this age, no groups live in isolation. Geographical isolation too, thus, cannot be accepted as a criterion for dif­ferentiating tribe from caste.

Using language as a criterion for difference between a tribe and a caste, it is said that each tribe has its own language but not a caste. But then there are tribes which do not have their own languages but speak the dialect of one of the main Indian languages, as in South India. Therefore, language also cannot be accepted as a criterion for distinction.

Economic backwardness too is not a correct criterion for distinction. If tribals are backward and primitive, caste Hindus are also almost equally poor. On the other hand, we have economically advanced tribes too. Bailey (1960:9) also rejects this criterion by holding that it is wrong to hold sociologically that ‘economic backwardness’ refers to a ‘standard of living’ rather than to ‘a type of economic relationship’.

He himself used ‘economic structure’ and ‘politico-economic organisation’ for differentiat­ing the Konds (tribe) from Oriyas (caste) in Orissa. Bailey (1960) presented a systematic interactional model for considering the position of the tribe vis-a-vis caste as two ideal poles in a linear continuum. He con­centrated on two factors: control over land and right to resources of land.

He maintained that in both the tribal and caste societies, we find land­owners and landless people who are dependants on landowners for their share of land resources. But analysing the economic organisation of a ‘vil­lage territory’ (inhabited by castes) and a ‘clan territory’ (inhabited by tribes), he found that a village is divided into economically specialised in­terdependent castes arranged hierarchically whereas though a clan territory is also composed of economically specialised groups, yet these are not hierarchically arranged; nor are they economically interdependent on each other.

In other words, in a tribal society, a larger proportion of people has a direct access to land while in the case of caste-based society, a very few people are land-owners and a large number achieve the right to land through a dependent relationship. Thus, according to Bailey, a tribe is organised on a ‘segmentary solidarity’ while a caste is organised on an ‘organic solidarity’.

But Bailey avers that at what point of continuum a tribe ceases and a caste begins is difficult to say. In India, the situation is such that there is hardly any tribe which exists as a separate society, hav­ing a completely separate political boundary. Economically too, the tribal economy is not different from the regional or national economy. But we do regard some communities as tribal and include them in the recognised list of scheduled tribes.