Studies of tribes in India, Africa or in Australia have recorded the fact that every society has definite norms, values and recognised rules of conduct. Individuals violating such norms or values or breaching rules of conduct are punished or subjected to various sanctions. Within a locally defined community, an individual who commit some act which goes against the norms of the community invites punishment by recognised coercive authority. Political community, whether or not it is organised in the form of state has its own territory (Mair, 1962). Protection of defined territory and its individuals, organising social activities like rituals and religious activities, and organising economic activities entail organised authority. The authority decides over the level of punishment for each defied activity which goes against the societal norms or values. Every society has certain authority, whether centralised, decentralised or lack of centralised authority. Lucy Mair makes the useful remark that ‘there is no society where rules are automatically obeyed’. Anthropologists like Gluckman and others have tried to show that in all primitive societies-ranging from small bands of hunters or fishermen to kingdoms-there exists some basic mechanism of social control which regulates the affairs of the tribe and resolves conflicts arising among its component groups (Eisenstadt, 1959: 201).
The general assumption is that most of these social control mechanisms are in one way or another common to all types of traditional or preliterate societies-whether segmentary, centralised or some other (ibid.).
According to Fortes and Evans Pritchard (1940) the societies which have centralised authority, administrative machinery, and judicial institutions were labeled as ‘primitive states’. Some groups like the Zulu, the Ngwato, the Bemba, the Banyankole and the Kede are regarded as “primitive states”. They observed sharp differences in the distribution of wealth, status and privileges, corresponding to the distribution of power and authority in all ‘primitive’ states. Stateless societies on the other hand, had no great distinctions between the rank, status, or wealth of their members (Haskell Fain, 1972). But they may not be egalitarian societies.
Fortes and Evans-Pritchard (1940: 5) have defined that the societies which lack centralised authority, administrative machinery, and constituted judicial institutions-in short which lack government-and in which there are no sharp divisions of rank, status, or wealth are called stateless societies. They are the Logoli, the Tallensi and the Nuer in Africa. Examples of such tribes in India are some Andaman Islander tribes namely, Jarwa, Sentinelese, etc. Some other hunters and gatherer groups where there is no centralised political system can be included in the stateless societies. Historically speaking, many other tribes in India were stateless societies. But the evolution of political system from stateless to state has taken place subsequently.
Like state, in the stateless societies, the political activities are supported by group behaviour. In stateless societies, the community members select the leader who possesses dominant characters with strong personalities, well-built physical feature, and may be with possession of wealth. In the study of the Nuer, Evans-Pritchard has reported the behaviour of the ‘leopard skin chief’ who is a dominant character selected from outside the clan group. However, this clan is not necessarily a dominant clan. He stands outside the lineage and tribal system. The leopard skin chief possesses bounty wealth in the form of cattle. He is offered cattle by community members or by the members of the guilty. Murder/killing of a fellow community member is often regarded as a serious offense to the community as a whole. Therefore, the leader takes appropriate action to compensate the kin of the deceased and the community he belongs to. Lucy Mair (1962) pointed out that in the absence of centralised political system if a man was wronged, his lineage supported him in seeking redress by force. When they got tired of fighting they invite an influential man to mediate between the two sides. However, collective action takes place in war or in maintenance of peace. The community members support the leaders in war and feud. This could be for protection of territory or could be for taking on revenge in case of murder of fellow members. While in more complex state societies, the guilty is punished by appropriate court of law or well developed judiciary system. In stateless societies there are no obvious political institutions like that in state. A leader is an institution in these societies. He also possesses ritual power. Appropriate quantum of punishment is decided by the leader. He maintains peace in the community. A leader resolves the disputes between
community members both within and outside. In addition, the protection of territory or resolving territorial disputes is significant part of the decision making authority.
Allocation and distribution of resources takes place with appropriate leadership. Both state and stateless societies protect social norms and values. Factors like religion, wealth and other socio-economic factors are closely interconnected with and determine political behaviour in stateless societies. In stateless societies, both kinship and politics are often diffused