Introduction
F.G. Bailey (1960) and Surjit Sinha (1965) proposed the concept of tribecaste continuum in Indian context. In fact, Indian ethnographers were grappling with the problem of discriminating between tribe and caste. Sir Herbert Risley (1891) was the earliest ethnographer to point out that it was difficult to “draw a demarcating line between tribe and caste” because many tribes have caste features. Later J.H. Hutton (1931) also expressed similar opinion when he was dealing with the data on caste and tribe in India. However, the demarcation between tribe and caste continued to be an unsolved problem till 1959. In 1960,
F.G. Bailey in his book “Tribe, Caste and Nation” solved the problem of differentiation of a tribe from a caste in the most acceptable way by proposing tribe-caste continuum. Redfield (1941: The Folk culture of Yucatan) was the first anthropologist to explain the concept of “continuum”. Following this concept, Bailey, (1961) proposed the concept of tribe-caste continuum.
What is tribe-caste continuum?
According to Bailey, “tribe-caste continuum is a polar ideal type of construction, which implies that no known society precisely corresponds to the description of the extreme ends, but all fall near one end or the other of the poles or in between”.
There is neither pure tribe nor pure caste; pure tribe and pure caste exist only in ideal terms. Ideal tribe and ideal caste cannot be treated as separate entities, but as opposite ends of a single line or continuum Particular societies can be located at different points along the line, some near to the tribe, others close to the caste. The tribe is organised on the basis of segmentary solidarity, but the caste is organised on the basis of organic solidarity. All other societies fall in between tribe and caste depending upon their degree of segmentary solidarity or organic solidarity. Greater is their segmentary solidarity nearer they are to the tribe, greater is their organic solidarity nearer they are to the caste. As one proceeds from tribe to caste one can notice decreasing degree of segmentary solidarity till it disappears to give place for organic solidarity.
Bailey’s Illustration
(i)To bring his point of view into sharp focus Bailey cites the tribal Khonds and the caste Oriyas who are inhabiting the Kondamals in Orissa. He studies them from there different angles and fields how they can be treated as polaric types and overlapping types.
According to Bailey, the Khonds are divided into a number of clans. Each clan is patrilineal and exogamous. People of a single clan live in a single village. The whole caln in a village owns property. Unless one is a member of a clan one cannot have right to use a part of the clan land. The clan allots a piece of land to every family. All members of a clan are equals. A right to land is achieved not by subordination to any one but by equality as kinsmen. Egalitarianism thus exists among the Khonds. To be precise the Khonds are divided into segments. Each segment is a territorial clan. All members in a clan are equals and all clans also are equals at least in theory. Thus the Khond as a tribe is a segmentary group.
On the contrary, the Oriya society is divided into several groups. Each group is a caste. The castes are not equals. They are hierarchically arranged. A number of castes inhabit each village. In every village power is concentrated in the hands of a dominant caste. The dominant caste holds the village together, because of its political power. All other castes are subordinate to the dominant caste. That means some castes are dependent castes and they achieve a right to a piece of the village land through a relationship subordinating them to the dominant caste.
There are similarities and differences between the Khonds and the Oriyas. Socially the Khonds reveal equality. the Oriyas reveal inequality. Economically, the Oriyas have occupational specialisation. On the other hand, the Khonds are arranged on the basis of economic equality. They are not interdependent through economic specialisation. Politically the Khonds are egalitarian but the Oriyas have dominant-subordinate relations. In a word Oriya society is organic society based on organic solidarity but Khond society is segmented society based on segmentary solidarity.
Thus the discussion reveals tribe-caste continuum. Tribe can be placed at one end and caste at another end. Their social, economic and political aspects are contrasts.
(ii) Bailey looks at the social, economic and political aspects of the Khonds and Oriyas in a different way, the differences become narrowed down and the distinction between a tribe and a caste disappears. The following discussion reveals this.
In every Khond village there are Panos. The caste of Panos is dependent on the Khonds. The Khonds are agriculturalists but the Panos remove the dead cattle of the Khonds. Since they serve the Khonds, the later provide pieces of land to them for cultivation. The relation between the Khonds and the Panos is exactly similar to that of a dominant caste and its dependent castes among the Oriyas. This relation is based on economic specialization and social hierarchy. Khonds and Panos produce different types of goods and services. In other words their economic specialization influences them to be interdependent on each other’s goods and services. Further, the Khonds are socially superior to the Panos. In the social hierarchy the Khonds hold a place of primacy over the Panos. There are elements of caste in a tribal society because the relation between the Khonds and the Panos is similar to that of a dominant caste and dependent castes among the Oriyas.
(iii) Bailey interprets this situation in a different way. If all the Oriya villages are viewed as an interacting totality, then the dominant, land owning caste groups in different villages comprise only one part of the Oriya society and the dependent castes in different villages comprise the other part of the Oriya society. But the links between the dominant, land owing caste groups in each village are similar to the segmentary links. Simlarly the links between the dependent caste groups in each village are akin to the segmentary links. That means each part of the Oriya caste society is like the tribal society. There are elements of tribe in a caste society just as there are elements of caste in a tribal society. Thus one cannot make a distinction between a tribe and a caste because they are not separate entities. One can ask to what extent one society is organised on segmentary principles, another society is organised on organic principles. If a society has direct access to the land, it can be placed closer to the tribal end of the continuum. Conversely, if a society has right to land through a dependent relationship, it can be placed closer to the caste end of the continuum.
(iv) Bailey understands tribe-caste continuum in another way. He examines the Khonds from a different angle. As said before, the Khonds are divided into a number of territorial clans. When the population of a clan increased, pressure on land built up. A part of the clan moved into the territory of another clan where population was less and land was plenty. The migrant clan adopted agnatic behaviour towards the other clan .The result was that the two clans became brotherly. No inter-marriage was permitted between them. The British disturbed this arrangement when they brought the hill areas of Orissa under their control. The British appointed Oriya chieftains as political heads, over the Khonds and their territories. As a result, the Oriya chieftains gained political authority over Khonds. This political arrangement disrupted the segmentary system among the Khonds. What happened was that the immigrant clan groups no longer bothered to take up agnatic ties with the original clans. They pledged their loyalties to the Oriya chieftains. Due to the intrigues of Oriya traders, Oriya middle men and Oriya officials many Khond families lost their lands. The immigrant Khonds purchased those lands and became land owners and were under the patronage of Oriya chieftains. Those Khonds who lost lands migrated to Oriya villages to work as labourers/dependents of Oriya landowners.
In both these cases the Khonds are moving out of tribal segmentary system to caste like dependency system. In the tribe-caste continuum, they are moving away from tribal end towards the caste end.
Conclusion
Bailey clearly sees this situation and interprets that both caste and tribe are becoming transformed. He declares that “both caste and tribe are being merged into a different system which is neither one nor the other. In such a social scenerio where caste and tribe are ceasing to be such, according to their classical points of distinction, the practical value of Bailey’s scheme is limited.