Groups labeled “tribes” are at the core of anthropology's rethinking of its older ethnological avatars. This article examines the complex and evolving notion of “tribe,” uncovering successive layers of meaning and politics that have accreted over centuries. It traces an intellectual genealogy of the term, increasingly in vogue in Euro-American debates over the future of liberal democratic societies. The article locates the epicenter of tribalism in the Indian Ocean, where it has coexisted with a “thin liberalism” over the past two centuries, and where invocations of timeless “tribes” conceal all-too-modern social structures. While colonial anthropologists and administrators infused new meaning into preexisting ideas, colonial subjects were not passive victims but active partners in constructing and governing “tribes” in colonial and postcolonial territories. A comparative and historical analysis across the Old World of Afro-Eurasia thus highlights the significance of “distributed sovereignty” in shaping both continuities and changes into the present. Understanding the myriad pasts of “tribes” and the historical texture of ethnopolitics in the East and West is also important for thinking reflexively about our own roles as producers of social-scientific knowledge. Not only might we recognize trends and tropes of (re)making tribes, but we may also unshackle ourselves from the burdens imposed on us by shared, unacknowledged imperial pasts.

In this conversation, Sugata Bose, Gardiner Professor of Oceanic History and Affairs at Harvard University, reflects on the intellectual influences, scholarly interventions, and historical conjunctures that have shaped his career. From his early engagement with Bengal's agrarian past to his seminal contributions to Indian Ocean studies, Bose discusses the evolution of his thinking, the historiographical debates that marked his formative years, and the enduring relevance of figures such as Subhas Chandra Bose and Rabindranath Tagore. He also reflects on the future of Indian Ocean history, the relationship between land and sea, and the challenges of writing across regional and disciplinary boundaries.

"Tribes" appear worldwide today as vestiges of a pre-modern past at odds with the workings of modern states. Acts of resistance and rebellion by groups designated as "tribal" have fascinated as well as perplexed administrators and scholars in South Asia and beyond. Tribal resistance and rebellion are held to be tragic yet heroic political acts by "subaltern" groups confronting omnipotent states. By contrast, this book draws on fifteen years of archival and ethnographic research to argue that statemaking is intertwined inextricably with the politics of tribal resistance in the margins of modern India. Uday Chandra demonstrates how the modern Indian state and its tribal or adivasi subjects have made and remade each other throughout the colonial and postcolonial eras, historical processes of modern statemaking shaping and being shaped by myriad forms of resistance by tribal subjects. Accordingly, tribal resistance, whether peaceful or violent, is better understood vis-à-vis negotiations with the modern state, rather than its negation, over the past two centuries. How certain people and places came to be seen as "tribal" in modern India is, therefore, tied intimately to how "tribal" subjects remade their customs and community in the course of negotiations with colonial and postcolonial states. Ultimately, the empirical material unearthed in this book requires rethinking and rewriting the political history of modern India from its "tribal" margins.

Abstract:This special section draws on the dynamic new field of Indian Ocean studies to rethink key concepts such as space and circulation (Jeremy Prestholdt), gender and kinship (Mahmood Kooria), and popular media and infrastructure (Bindu Menon Mannil). Through fresh interdisciplinary insights from the contributors' archives and fieldwork, the articles critically interrogate these concepts from a distinctive intellectual vantage point. Historians and anthropologists based in different parts of the globe come together in this special section to "think with the Indian Ocean." The authors take a concept that is in wide currency in the humanities and social sciences and then reimagine it creatively in the contexts that they study. In doing so, they decenter familiar ways of seeing and knowing, ofering a new decolonial lens to make sense of the circularities and connections that constitute our world.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Erik de Maaker. 2021. Reworking Culture: Relatedness, Rites, and Resources in Garo Hills, North East India. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 328 pp. Maps, glossary, figures, notes, references, index. ₹1695 (hardback—ISBN: 9788194831693)

individuals of the kind presupposed by social contract theories and neo-liberal economics, their participation in democratic politics depends on multifarious forms of mediation or brokerage. Socially-embedded women and men enter or participate in everyday politics worldwide in a hierarchical manner: some lead, others are led. Democracy does not, in other words, imply equality. But it does not mean, as Adam Auerbach argues in this book, that poorer citizens in countries such as India are hapless victims of a top-down exploitative system. Demanding Development is a study of political brokerage in squatter settlements or ‘slums’ in two Indian cities, Bhopal and Jaipur. It is based on two years of fieldwork in these cities. Data from interviews, participant-observation and surveys conducted in these low-income urban settlements propel the central claim of the book. Put plainly, Auerbach argues that more populous and ethnically diverse settlements enjoy more dense networks of political brokers and party workers than smaller and more homogenous settlements. Political brokerage and, in turn, leadership via the avenues provided by political parties emerge organically from within the settlements: those who lead and those who are led live in the same slums, but the former commit to ‘social work’ and receive compensation from their clients—voters as well as their patrons, that is, elected representatives in state and national legislatures. Political brokerage means, above all, connecting voters to their democratic representatives. For those interested in such a career, political ambition breeds skill and experience. Auerbach shows how, in these nested hierarchies of everyday democratic life, what matters most is the ability of community leaders to provide public goods, particularly better roads, streetlighting, garbage collection and primary health care. Ethnic allegiances matter, but across caste, religious and regional lines, getting the job done matters more. Of course, not all jobs can be done. There are, as Auerbach’s interviews and surveys reveal, limits to how much ‘development’ can be demanded of elected representatives via party workers. Piped water and sewage systems, for example, require extensive capital expenditure by the state, and unless a neighbourhood is blessed with one or both, a slum might need to live without them. Subaltern claim-making in Indian cities is hardly new, of course. It is true that the 74th Amendment to the Indian Constitution has created a new framework within which claims are articulated and channelled into the political system. Partha Chatterjee and his interlocutors have shown that ‘political society’ in India and beyond is centred around a new politics of the poor. Such politics may not be egalitarian in demanding public goods, denoted by vikas or ‘development’, but it can be effective. Indeed, it is precisely the effectiveness of 1. Anastasia Piliavsky, Patronage as Politics in South Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). 2. Partha Chatterjee, The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004); see also Ajay Gudavarthy, Re-Framing Democracy and Agency in India: Interrogating Political Society (New Delhi: Anthem Press, 2012). SOUTH ASIA: JOURNAL OF SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES 2022, VOL. 45, NO. 4, 758–764 hierarchical politics among the poor that allow large-scale infrastructure upgrades to be postponed, sometimes indefinitely, until funds materialise. There is a curious paradox here: efficacious grass-roots democracy, marked by competition and hierarchy, might coexist with a dysfunctional macro-politics rooted in cosy relations between big business and elected politicians. This paradox could have been explored in this book, particularly in the light of the work of the heterodox economist Kalyan Sanyal on the costs of urban informality, but Auerbach limits himself to a narrower micro-political analysis. At this level of analysis, only democratic demands are visible, some of which are easier than others to meet. Slums serviced by a dense network of political brokers and party workers are also, of course, sites of political violence. From Paul Brass via Thomas Blom Hansen to Ward Berenschot, we have learned much about the local roots of communal violence in cities and towns across North India. Auerbach fails to consider this dimension of grass-roots democracy in Indian cities. Might the striking support for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in, say, the slums of Bhopal tell us something about the election of (Sadhvi) Pragya Singh Thakur from this parliamentary constituency? Do the everyday practices of demanding development in slums also lead to demands for autocratic, centralised leadership? Could grass-roots democracy and everyday authoritarianism have the same social bases? Anthropologists and sociologists studying urban politics in India are unlikely to be surprised by the findings of Demanding Development. In fact, the book might be read as a translation of the work done by a generation of urban researchers into the language of American political science. This is a language of measurement and quantification of social and political processes explicated by other social scientists. But there is also banality at play here. Is it really puzzling that small squatter settlements have fewer political brokers than larger ones? Or that ethnic homogeneity in slums, a rarity in itself, is associated statistically with a low density of party workers? To be fair, Auerbach is scrupulous in acknowledging his debt to prior scholarship in the form of extensive notes. Such acknowledgements, however, reveal how far the novelty of academic work rests on the disciplinary framework within which it is constructed. In sum, this study of slum politics in two North Indian state capitals builds on and validates existing scholarship on urban politics in South Asia and, indeed, Latin America. It is propelled by interviews with political brokers in slums, who narrate their work-a-day routines in detail. The poor residents of these urban settlements, by contrast, appear as statistical aggregates and averages. If Indian politics grants a modicum of voice to the poor without the agency to upset the entire applecart, American political science now seems to grant the poor the agency to shuffle patrons and brokers without the voice to articulate why they do what they do. Accordingly, the urban poor in contemporary India and elsewhere must seemingly settle for a strategic politics of survival visa-vis the crumbs offered by democratic politics. 3. Christophe Jaffrelot, Atul Kohli and Kanta Murali, Business and Politics in India (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019). 4. Kalyan Sanyal, Rethinking Capitalist Development: Primitive Accumulation, Governmentality and Post-Colonial Capitalism (New Delhi: Routledge, 2007). 5. Paul Brass, Theft of an Idol: Text and Context in the Representation of Collective Violence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997); Thomas Blom Hansen, Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001); and Ward Berenschot, Riot Politics: Hindu-Muslim Violence and the Indian State (London: Hurst & Co., 2011). SOUTH ASIA: JOURNAL OF SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES 759

In late 2008 a five-minute video clip entitled Gaon Chodab Nahin (literally, We Shall Not Leave Our Village) came into circulation among activists and grassroots NGOs in the forest highlands of eastern India. To those who watched and passed on the video throughout the eastern Indian states of Jharkhand, West Bengal and Orissa, it summed up the plight of adivasi or tribal populations in the region as they battled an emerging state-corporate nexus whose plans for rapid industrialization in India relied on greater access to forest and mineral resources. This essay critically interrogates the myriad lives of this video clip through a close study of the real and virtual arenas in which it came to be viewed and engaged by different audiences. Drawing on extensive fieldwork in the forest state of Jharkhand in eastern India, I examine how developmental NGOs, indigeneity activists and rural adivasi villagers came to view and interpret this video differently. These different interpretations, I show, simultaneously perpetuate and destabilize established ideas of primitivism in postcolonial India, especially when some adivasi subjects talk back to their well-meaning patrons and critique representations of themselves. Might the production of primitive subjects be, I ask, paradoxically conjoined to processes of primitive accumulation in postcolonial India?

City & SocietyVolume 32, Issue 2 Original ArticleOpen Access A Divided City in a Time of Pandemic: Dispatches from Doha Uday Chandra, Georgetown University in QatarSearch for more papers by this authorIrene Promodh, Georgetown University in QatarSearch for more papers by this author Uday Chandra, Georgetown University in QatarSearch for more papers by this authorIrene Promodh, Georgetown University in QatarSearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 June 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12310AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume32, Issue2August 2020 This article also appears in:COVID-19 City Dispatches RelatedInformation