(重新)定义劣势:贱民、犯罪和“部落”在印度,大约1910 - 1950年

IF 0.2 Q2 HISTORY Studies in History Pub Date : 2020-02-01 DOI:10.1177/0257643019900089
Sarah Gandee
{"title":"(重新)定义劣势:贱民、犯罪和“部落”在印度,大约1910 - 1950年","authors":"Sarah Gandee","doi":"10.1177/0257643019900089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contemporary India, the arena of identity politics and ‘reservations’ is highly contentious, with groups clamouring for official recognition within the categories of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class. This article sheds new light on the wider processes of inclusion and exclusion among these categories by delineating the contested position of the so-called ‘criminal tribes’ within this framework. Until the 1920s, these criminalized communities were generally positioned as a separate group alongside ‘untouchable’ and ‘tribal’ communities, each of which was considered to have faced particular forms of disadvantage which demanded certain protections and ‘uplift’. Between the 1920s and 1950s, however, this distinct status was withdrawn amid debates over the boundaries, purpose and indeed responsibilities of representation within the evolving framework of group rights. While there was continued recognition of their distinct status in debates over definitions of disadvantage (in terms of a shared history of criminalization), this did not translate into official recognition as a separate category of disadvantaged citizen after independence, thereby complicating these communities’ ability to access the preferential policies inaugurated by the independent constitution in 1950. The article challenges the idea that these political categories are innate or fixed, and simultaneously historicizes the demands of the denotified (ex-‘criminal’) and nomadic tribe movement, which today campaigns for a separate constitutional classification within the ‘reservations’ regime.","PeriodicalId":44179,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History","volume":"77 1","pages":"71 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(Re-)Defining Disadvantage: Untouchability, Criminality and ‘Tribe’ in India, c. 1910s–1950s\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Gandee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0257643019900089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In contemporary India, the arena of identity politics and ‘reservations’ is highly contentious, with groups clamouring for official recognition within the categories of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class. This article sheds new light on the wider processes of inclusion and exclusion among these categories by delineating the contested position of the so-called ‘criminal tribes’ within this framework. Until the 1920s, these criminalized communities were generally positioned as a separate group alongside ‘untouchable’ and ‘tribal’ communities, each of which was considered to have faced particular forms of disadvantage which demanded certain protections and ‘uplift’. Between the 1920s and 1950s, however, this distinct status was withdrawn amid debates over the boundaries, purpose and indeed responsibilities of representation within the evolving framework of group rights. While there was continued recognition of their distinct status in debates over definitions of disadvantage (in terms of a shared history of criminalization), this did not translate into official recognition as a separate category of disadvantaged citizen after independence, thereby complicating these communities’ ability to access the preferential policies inaugurated by the independent constitution in 1950. The article challenges the idea that these political categories are innate or fixed, and simultaneously historicizes the demands of the denotified (ex-‘criminal’) and nomadic tribe movement, which today campaigns for a separate constitutional classification within the ‘reservations’ regime.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"71 - 97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0257643019900089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0257643019900089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在当代印度,身份政治和“预留制”的舞台上充满了争议,一些团体大声要求官方承认他们属于排期种姓、排期部落或其他落后阶级。本文通过描述所谓“犯罪部落”在这一框架内的争议地位,揭示了这些类别之间更广泛的包容和排斥过程。直到20世纪20年代,这些被定罪的社区通常被定位为一个独立的群体,与“贱民”和“部落”社区一起,每个社区都被认为面临着特殊形式的劣势,需要一定的保护和“提升”。然而,在20世纪20年代至50年代之间,这种独特的地位在不断发展的群体权利框架内关于代表的边界、目的和实际责任的辩论中被撤回。虽然在关于不利地位定义的辩论中继续承认他们的独特地位(就共同的定罪历史而言),但这并没有转化为独立后官方承认他们是一个单独的不利地位公民类别,从而使这些社区获得1950年独立宪法开创的优惠政策的能力复杂化。这篇文章挑战了这些政治类别是天生的或固定的观点,同时将去污化(前“罪犯”)和游牧部落运动的要求历史化,这些运动今天在“保留”制度下争取单独的宪法分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(Re-)Defining Disadvantage: Untouchability, Criminality and ‘Tribe’ in India, c. 1910s–1950s
In contemporary India, the arena of identity politics and ‘reservations’ is highly contentious, with groups clamouring for official recognition within the categories of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class. This article sheds new light on the wider processes of inclusion and exclusion among these categories by delineating the contested position of the so-called ‘criminal tribes’ within this framework. Until the 1920s, these criminalized communities were generally positioned as a separate group alongside ‘untouchable’ and ‘tribal’ communities, each of which was considered to have faced particular forms of disadvantage which demanded certain protections and ‘uplift’. Between the 1920s and 1950s, however, this distinct status was withdrawn amid debates over the boundaries, purpose and indeed responsibilities of representation within the evolving framework of group rights. While there was continued recognition of their distinct status in debates over definitions of disadvantage (in terms of a shared history of criminalization), this did not translate into official recognition as a separate category of disadvantaged citizen after independence, thereby complicating these communities’ ability to access the preferential policies inaugurated by the independent constitution in 1950. The article challenges the idea that these political categories are innate or fixed, and simultaneously historicizes the demands of the denotified (ex-‘criminal’) and nomadic tribe movement, which today campaigns for a separate constitutional classification within the ‘reservations’ regime.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
40.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Studies in History reflects the considerable expansion and diversification that has occurred in historical research in India in recent years. The old preoccupation with political history has been integrated into a broader framework which places equal emphasis on social, economic and cultural history. Studies in History examines regional problems and pays attention to some of the neglected periods of India"s past. The journal also publishes articles concerning countries other than India. It provides a forum for articles on the writing of different varieties of history, and contributions challenging received wisdom on long standing issues.
期刊最新文献
Epigraphic Practice and the Making of State Society in Eastern Madhya Pradesh (Circa Fifth–Sixth Centuries ce) Representations of the Body and Gender in Varāhamihira’s Jyotiṣaśāstra Book review: K. M. Shrimali, The Religious Enterprise: Studies in Early Indian Religions Book review: Samir Kumar Das and Bishnupriya Basak (Eds.), The Making of Goddess Durga in Bengal: Art, Heritage and the Public Book review: Pankaj Jha, A Political History of Literature: Vidyapati and the Fifteenth Century
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1