Revision summary
Ghurye treated tribes as backward Hindus and favoured assimilation. Elwin favoured protection of land, language, and custom, with limited isolation. Nehru’s Panchsheel and the Schedules adopted integration, not either pole alone. ITDP, PESA, and FRA are the programme face of that middle path. Mining and leakage still undercut the protective half.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
- G. S. Ghurye and Verrier Elwin named the two poles of tribal policy: assimilation into Hindu society and protection of a distinct tribal world. The Union later wrote a middle path of integration.
Body
Ghurye
- In The Aborigines – So-Called – and Their Future, G. S. Ghurye treated tribes as backward Hindus. Isolation, he said, was a missionary and anthropologist romance.
- The approach is assimilation: roads, Hindu social reform, and an end to a separate museum people.
- He feared Elwin’s protection as a freeze that served the outsider expert more than the Adivasi.
Elwin
- Verrier Elwin argued for a measure of isolation and for protecting land, language, and shifting cultivation from diku and contractor.
- National Parks of the tribal kind, and later a gentler integration, were his policy words. Baiga and NEFA notes are the cases.
- He influenced Nehru’s thinking more than Ghurye did, even after Elwin entered state service.
Government of India policies
- Constitutional: Articles 342, 244, Fifth and Sixth Schedules, reservation, and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
- Nehruvian Tribal Panchsheel: no imposition, respect for land and culture, develop through their own institutions, simple administration, and judgement by quality of human life.
- Programmes: Tribal Sub-Plan, ITDPs/ITDAs, PESA, 1996, FRA, 2006, and special schemes for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups.
- Practice mixes Ghurye’s schools and markets with Elwin’s protective law. Mining and dams often betray both.
Limit
- Policy on paper is integration. Policy on the ground is still extraction plus welfare offices.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD GH[Ghurye assimilation] --> H[Backward Hindus] EL[Elwin protection] --> P[Land culture isolate] GOI[GOI integration] --> S[Schedule PESA FRA ITDP]
Conclusion
Ghurye wanted assimilation as Hindus. Elwin wanted protection of a tribal world. Official India chose integration through Schedule, PESA, FRA, and Sub-Plan, and still leaks that choice in the mine belt.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Compare the nature of tribal movements between North-East and Central India. Briefly mention the current status of existing tribal movements in these areas
Next question on this syllabus topic (2022 · Q8(a)). View answer →
-
Did the Government choose Ghurye or Elwin?
It wrote integration. Schools follow Ghurye’s modernising push. Schedule and FRA follow Elwin’s shield.
-
Is isolation official policy now?
No. Even PVTG programmes aim at careful access, not a sealed park.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
-
2023 · Q2(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
"Tribes are backward Hindus." Critically comment with reference to the contributions of G.S. Ghurye. -
2026 · Q4(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Write an account on the contribution of Verrier Elwin in developing policies for the tribal populations in post-independent India -
2026 · Q6(b) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the impact of democratic institutions on the tribal populations of India -
2026 · Q6(c) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Write an account on the prevalence of sickle cell disease among the tribal populations of India. What are the initiatives undertaken by the affected states to tackle this disease? -
2026 · Q7(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Assess the contribution of colonial scholars in studying the tribal populations of North-East India
More from this topic
Q3(c) · UPSC Mains 2026 · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks · Solution
Discuss with examples, how general comparative analogy has been used for ethnoarchaeological studies in India
Emergence, growth and development of Anthropology in India
1. Ethnoarchaeology uses present-day cultural practices to interpret prehistoric material remains through the principle of uniformitarianism. 2. General comparative analogy applies broad cross-cultural parallels to infer past human behavior when direct historical links are missing. 3. Studies of contemporary stone-knapping among groups like the Birhor help explain prehistoric microlithic manufacturing and campsite use. 4. Traditional rural Indian pottery techniques and vessel distributions offer vital clues for understanding ancient ceramic production and storage. 5. Living megalithic traditions among tribal communities, such as the Munda and Naga, provide models for interpreting Iron Age mortuary architecture. 6. These ethnographic parallels help archaeologists reconstruct dynamic past societies from static artifacts, provided researchers avoid overgeneralizations.
Q3(c) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks · Solution
Highlight the significant contributions of B. S. Guha, Irawati Karve and S. R. K. Chopra to Indian Anthropology
Emergence, growth and development of Anthropology in India
Guha: 1931 racial types, ASI institution, Harappan osteology; typology is the limit. Karve: kinship organisation, Maharashtra, epics, north–south marriage contrast. Chopra: Siwalik Sivapithecus school at Chandigarh; Ramapithecus later revised. Together they cover living measurement, civilisation-as-kinship, and Miocene fossils. Keep their questions; update their boxes with genetics and ethnography.
Q5(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · Anthropology GS 2 · 10 marks · Solution
Describe ILO's Convention No. 169 (1989) on Indigenous and Tribal people. Is India a signatory to it?
Emergence, growth and development of Anthropology in India
ILO Convention 169 (1989) covers indigenous and tribal peoples and stresses self-identification, consultation, land and custom. It replaced the integrationist Convention 107 (1957). India ratified 107 and has not ratified 169. Indian hesitation cites the ST list, sovereignty and land law; PESA and FRA already resemble 169 in parts. Never state that India is a signatory to 169.