BANE 146 Solved Guess Paper 2026 for Anthropology of Indigenous People, IGNOU BAG and BA Multidisciplinary

Define Indigenous People and give a global overview

Question: Define Indigenous People. Discuss the concept of indigenous as given by International Organisations and give a global overview with examples.

Meaning of Indigenous Peoples

"Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories." (José Martínez Cobo, 1972)

The term derives from the Latin indigena, formed from indi ("within") and gen or genere ("root"), meaning "born in" or "native of". There is no single universal definition, since indigenous communities exist within unique social, political and geographical situations. The word "peoples" is preferred over "population" because it recognises organised societies with an identity of their own.

Concept Given by International Organisations

1. ILO Convention No. 169 (1989): gives objective criteria (descent, retention of own institutions) plus the subjective criterion of self-identification.
2. ILO Convention No. 107 (1957): earlier treated indigenous peoples as a sub-category of "tribal" and called them "populations".
3. UNDRIP (2007): the most comprehensive instrument; it identifies but does not formally define indigenous peoples, relying on self-identification.
4. World Bank (1991): identifies them by attachment to ancestral land, an indigenous language, customary institutions and subsistence production.
5. UN modern criteria: self-identification, historical continuity, link to territory, distinct language and non-dominant status.

Global Overview with Examples

There are more than 370 million indigenous people across about 90 countries, and nearly 70% live in Asia. They occupy only 20% of the world's land yet nurture about 80% of its cultural and biological diversity, with over 5,000 ethnic cultures.

1. Americas and Pacific: the Lakota (USA), Mayas (Guatemala), Aymaras (Bolivia), Maori (New Zealand) and Aborigines (Australia).
2. Asia: Scheduled Tribes of India, hill tribes of Thailand and the natives of Borneo.
3. Africa: the San, Pygmies, Hadzabe and the pastoralist Maasai and Tuareg.

Conclusion: No universal definition exists, so the UN prefers to identify rather than define indigenous peoples, with self-identification as the core criterion alongside historical continuity, territorial bonds and a distinct culture.

H. H. Risley's classification of the Indian population

Question: Discuss H. H. Risley's classification of the population of India.

About Risley's Classification

"Based on physical characters and on nine anthropometric measurements of 5784 individuals, Risley classified the Indian population into seven racial types." (H. H. Risley, The People of India, 1915)

H. H. Risley, a British ethnographer and colonial administrator, first attempted a schematic racial classification of India in 1886 to 1888. His seven racial types are:

1. Turko-Iranian: broad head, medium nose, fairly tall, fair complexion; found in Baluchistan (Baluchis, Afghans).
2. Indo-Aryan: long head, long narrow nose, fair complexion; Rajasthan, Punjab and Kashmir.
3. Scytho-Dravidian: medium-to-broad head, medium nose, fair complexion; Gujarat and Coorg.
4. Aryo-Dravidian (Hindustan): long head, broad nose, skin light brown to dark; Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
5. Mongolo-Dravidian (Bengali): broad head, medium nose, dark skin, plentiful facial hair; Bengal and Orissa.
6. Mongolian: broad head, oblique eyes with epicanthic fold, short stature; Assam, Nepal and Burma.
7. Dravidian: short stature, long head, broad nose, very dark skin; described by Risley as the original inhabitants of India (Paniyans, Santals).

Criticism

Majumdar pointed out that the Dravidian "race" is in fact a linguistic group, not a racial one. Most Indian anthropologists do not accept Risley's classification, and the Dravidian, Scytho-Dravidian and Mongolo-Dravidian types are criticised as resting on preconceived notions.

Conclusion: Risley's seven-fold scheme was a pioneering anthropometric classification of the Indian population, but its mixing of linguistic and racial categories and its colonial assumptions led most later scholars to reject it.

Serological and biochemical markers among indigenous people

Question: Discuss serological and biochemical markers among indigenous people.

Meaning of Serological Markers

"The blood group systems are a classical example of serological markers, which form a component of serology; they have been studied by anthropologists to understand population variation and racial classification." (Palla Venkatramana, BANE-146 course book)

Serological (Blood Group) Markers

1. ABO system: discovered by Landsteiner (1900); four groups A, B, AB and O depend on antigens A and B and antibodies anti-A and anti-B, controlled by three genes A, B and O.
2. Rh (D) system: discovered by Landsteiner and Wiener (1940); two phenotypes Rh D+ and Rh D-, governed by alleles Rh-D (dominant) and Rh-d.
3. MNS system: discovered by Landsteiner and Levine (1927); other systems include P, Lutheran, Diego, Duffy, Kidd and Kell.

In the distribution among Indian tribes, the "O" blood group is generally the highest, and in the Rh system the Rh-D gene shows the highest frequency, reaching 100% among many tribal groups.

Biochemical Markers

Biochemical variation refers to population differences in serum proteins and red cell enzymes, studied to document genetic differences and aid racial classification.

1. Serum proteins: Transferrin (Tf), discovered by Smithies (1958), and Haptoglobin (Hp), discovered by Smithies (1955); Tf is controlled by three alleles (Tfc, Tfb, Tfd) and Hp by two (Hp1, Hp2).
2. Red cell enzymes: G-6-PD (Carson et al., 1956), Acid Phosphatase ACP1 (Hopkinson et al., 1963) and 6-PGD (Fildes and Parr, 1963).
3. Distribution: the Gd+ allele of G-6-PD reaches almost 100% in most tribes, and the PGDA allele averages about 0.959 among Indian tribal populations.

Conclusion: Serological markers such as ABO and Rh, together with biochemical markers like serum proteins and red cell enzymes, reveal clear genetic variation among indigenous populations across India's geographical zones.

Issues in tribal education and its role in social transformation

Question: Discuss the issues and challenges in education among tribal populations and the role of education in their social transformation.

Meaning of Education

"Education is the influence exercised by adult generations on those who are not yet ready for social life." (Emile Durkheim, 1956)

The word education comes from the Latin educare (to bring up) and educere (to lead forth). It takes three forms: formal (in schools and colleges), informal (in family and kin group) and non-formal (for out-of-school children). It was made a fundamental right by the 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002) and the RTE Act (2009).

Issues and Challenges in Tribal Education

1. Non-school factors: economic hardship, household responsibilities, early marriage of girls and low parental motivation cause drop-out and irregular attendance.
2. School factors: poor infrastructure, weak instruction, teaching in a language other than the mother tongue, and remote location with low enrolment.
3. External factors: policies often lack understanding of the complex realities of tribal life and culture (Sujatha, 2002).
4. Female literacy: remains very low due to early marriage, patriarchal norms, dowry and teacher indifference.

Initiatives and Role in Social Transformation

1. Incentives: textbooks, uniforms, mid-day meals, scholarships and school bags provided by the state raise enrolment and retention.
2. Residential schools: Ashram schools for tribal children and Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBVs) for girls.
3. Mother-tongue teaching: Multi-Lingual Education (MLE) in Andhra Pradesh (2003) teaches classes 1 to 5 in eight tribal languages.
4. Transformation: education promotes economic growth, women's empowerment and overall quality of life (Tilak, 2002).

Conclusion: Despite low literacy and many school, non-school and policy challenges, education that respects tribal language and culture is a key instrument of social transformation, and it demands equal, quality learning without discrimination.

Forest policies since colonial times and tribal interests

Question: Deliberate on the forest policies since colonial times and their conflict with tribal interests.

Meaning and Background

"Forest policy was introduced during the colonial regime to restrict unauthorised access to forest resources; through it the state exerted control over vast forests, with vested colonial interest in administrative control over tribal areas." (Hari Charan Behera, BANE-146 course book)

Before colonial rule, forests were treated as community property protected by customary practice. Colonial legislation began to control these resources, with serious repercussions for tribal rights to livelihood, culture and social networks.

Forest Policies Since Colonial Times

1. Forest Act 1865: the first formal step, empowering the state to acquire monopolistic control, mainly to supply timber to the railways (Guha).
2. Forest Act 1878: classified forests into reserved, protected and village forests and declared certain acts forest offences.
3. Forest Policy Resolution 1894 and Indian Forest Act 1927: further classified forests and gave the state greater control to raise revenue, leading to massive deforestation and harassment of tribals.
4. National Forest Policy 1952: the first after independence; it recognised the tribal-forest bond but kept the colonial emphasis on national interest over local demand.
5. Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and NCA 1976: created protected areas and restricted access, with little sympathy for forest-dependent tribes.

Pro-People Shift

1. National Forest Policy 1988: prioritised environmental stability, recognised community ownership and introduced Joint Forest Management (JFM).
2. PESA 1996 and FRA 2006: PESA empowered Gram Sabhas over NTFP, and the Forest Rights Act recognised the rights of forest-dwelling tribes.

Conclusion: From the Forest Act of 1865 to the Indian Forest Act of 1927, forest policy curtailed tribal rights for revenue and control; only with the 1988 Policy, PESA and FRA did the symbiotic tribal-forest relationship gain real recognition.