In our everyday lives, ethnicity appears self-evident – the group a person belongs to. Indeed in a sense, this idea is often carried into sociological discussions. This occurs when we term an ethnic group as a group of people who share a common culture. In this sense then, each of us belongs to an ethnic group. However, this perhaps does not reflect the complex histories and politics that go into naming an ethnic group as distinct.

Ethnic identity is a contested term with no one agreed-upon definition. Nonetheless, there has been some agreement on some related aspects surrounding ethnicity.  For this, a discussion of concepts such as ethnic group, ethnic identity, ethnic markers, ethnocentrism may help understand ethnicity. 

Ethnicity can also be considered as a relational concept involving the construction of similarities and dissimilarities between two or more groups in social interaction. Thus, an ethnic group is mostly defined in relation to some other group(s).  In this process, both the members as well as the non-members identify certain cultural distinctions that mark them as apart. As such, ethnicity then can be defined as an attempt at understanding intergroup relations. This understanding is however always context-specific.

We thus see how ethnicity is often associated with intergroup competition for recognition, access to power and resources. It is in these contexts and in the active role of people that provides a sense of social identity and belongingness for its members. For example, the region of Bodoland Territorial Area Districts (BTAD) has seen a constant contestation between different identity groups.

A historical understanding of the use of the word ethnic groups mentions that “ethnic was used in the early 19^th century to refer to the study of the origin, characteristics and progress of the world’s different ‘people’ marked by differences in religion, behaviour, lifestyle”.[i] While in the 20^th  century, ‘ethnic group’ was, for the most part, used to refer to individuals who belonged to what one can term as minority cultural groups.  Thus in the developed parts of the world, for example, Europe and the USA, the larger part of the populace in every country were considered ‘nations’. The term ‘ethnic group’ or ‘ethnie’.[ii] was used to identify the indigenous inhabitants of Africa, the two Americas, Asia and Australia, many a time, replacing the existing nomenclature of ‘tribe’.

In India itself, the term has been used in a more extensive sense and also includes groups defined by religious attributes, for example, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and so on, to the various indigenous groups, for example, Adivasis, and the various ones in Northeast India who are constitutionally acknowledged as Schedule Tribes in India. Hutchinson and Smith opine that there are six characteristics of classifying an ‘ethnie’, 

[a] common proper name that reflects the essence of the community; myth of a common origin in time and place; shared memories of a common past including heroes, events and their commemoration; one or more elements of a common culture such as religion, customs or language; a link with a homeland, basically implying symbolic attachment to the ancestral land; and a sense of solidarity on the part of atleast some sections of the ethnie’s population.[iii]

These features are more or less to be found in almost most of the definitions put forth by many other scholars in the terms of defining ethnicity and ethnic groups.  All these features may be said to fall within the realm of socio-cultural attributes with a hint of symbolic attachment to them which then becomes a defining feature of a particular ethnic group. For instance, the Bodo tribe of Assam, mostly accrue language, culture and territory as necessary symbols for defining their distinctiveness.

Ethnicity can also be defined in terms of shared genetic, racial and linguistic traits. Gilley, while defining ethnicity states, “… that part of a person’s identity which is drawn from one or more “markers” like race, religion, shared history, region, social symbols or language”.[iv] This points out that although an individual is undoubtedly important, only so far as they identify themselves to the collective identity. Thus, in referring to ethnicity, the connotation is basically in terms of a collective identity. The members of these collective necessarily need to have a shared ancestry, follow a particular tradition, culture and speak a similar language. This idea of a collective sense also actualises the cause of a homeland, where groups resort to using ethnic symbols for identity assertion.[v]

If we are to analyse from the dominant anthropological perspective in the 1960s, an attempt was made to define and identify ethnic groups by attempting to locate their ‘objective’ cultural traits. However, this in itself is a difficult process. To begin with, the content of culture itself may be contested, mostly because the defining marker of the cultural identity of the same ethnic group may vary in different situations and contexts.

An ethnic movement may initially be based on language in one context, and then move into other issues such as the putative ideas of origin, kin, race in another; and religion or just culture as a way of life in yet another. Also, the same objective marker can be subjectively experienced differently in different points of history. For instance, when the Assam movement began, various ethnic groups (at times interchangeably used to refer to the tribal communities of Assam) be it the Misings, the Rabhas or the Bodos, all of them supported the cause of the movement and were part of the larger ‘Axomiya community’. However, with time this sense of collectiveness was lost and many groups started asserting their own ethnic(tribal) identity. Most of the ethnic groups consider the signing of the Assam Accord to be partial and based on the interest of only the Assamese community.[vi]

Ethnic communities are mostly close-knit groups that are closely associated with ideas of symbolic ethnicity and its maintenance. This idea can be viewed as an indicator of the persistence of ethnic groups and cultures. Symbolic ethnicity can be articulated in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, it is mostly characterized by a sense of strong allegiance to the culture of the community and boundary creation. 

The idea of ethnic boundaries can be drawn from the writings of Fredrik Barth which according to him ascertains the membership of an ethnic group. It can best be explained as a psychological or mental boundary emerging out of the collective efforts of construction and maintenance. Barth was one of the first scholars who analysed ethnicity as the product of social ascriptions whereby individuals and others engage in a process of labelling. He asserts that people recognise members of a group through experience, and pose a cultural contrast to the members of the other groups by arranging them in terms of an imaginary ethnic boundary. This intuition of boundary along with creating a sense of belongingness among the group members also creates a sense of the cultural difference between groups. Accordingly, a person’s ethnic identity is formulated from the perspective as to how oneself as well as others, perceive their ethnic identity. Ethnic identities and ethnic boundaries are thus perspectives created by both the individual and the group as well as by outside agents and organisations.

Along with the existence of boundaries, there are also specific markers that maintain them. There are specific mechanisms for maintenance of boundaries, which in a way act as ‘cultural markers of differences. The membership of an individual to any group is ascertained based on these markers. All of the cultural markers are mostly guided by two essential elements – to be visible for the larger public and applicable. These symbols must be easily expressed and felt by the members, without requiring undue interference in other aspects of life. For the Bodo community, language is one such symbol. In fact, the very premise of the Bodoland Movement was started based on language.

The cultural ethnic markers exemplify the existence of an ethnic group or community. At times, the basic symbols or markers of identification are not easily discernible so other features act as markers of identity in such circumstances. Generally adopted identity markers are dress, language, and physical features.  For instance, the traditional dress of women “dokhona” and the “arunai” are considered as symbols of identification of the Bodo community. The Bodos argue that wearing a dokhona is the feature that makes a Bodo woman identifiable in society.

Cultural traits can be defined as elements that highlight how an ethnic group asserts and defines itself. Nevertheless, only a few selected available cultural elements are used for denoting the membership to the ethnic group. However, these features and characteristics that groups use and regard as significant cultural symbols and emblems of their ethnic identity change over time, place and situation. For instance, in the Bangladesh liberation movement, the use of bindis by women was an assertion of Bengali identity. In contrast, in more recent years, the use of veils may be an assertion of Islamic identity. The people concerned are the same. Some of these traits are given priority or are over-communicated while others are understated, denied or replaced, and perhaps reinterpreted and reintroduced at another time.[vii]

Thus, it is not easy to arrive at a fixed definition of an ethnic group. Their making and remaking are context-specific. Ethnicity like many social entities and categories emerge, migrate and change in concrete historical contexts. As such, it is essential to describe the historical processes that go into the shaping and the shifting in the meanings of ethnic groups. Further, they are also shaped by the specific power dynamics of particular societies. For instance, in the modern West, ethnic is often used to refer to people with a different background from whoever is using the word. It’s a handy catch-all, short for ethnic minorities. The Korean American, the Sikh Canadian are some examples.

In the Indian context communities in the North East may be often referred to as ethnic, such as the Bodos or Karbis or Koch. But dominant communities such as the Tamils or Bengalis or even Assamese may not. Significantly the Tamil, Bengali, Assamese and the Karbi who migrate to the United States of America (USA) are all categorized as Asian Indian American,[viii] to distinguish them from ‘native’ Indians. However, some native Americans would be preferred to be called by their specific tribal or community names.

As such, it won’t be wrong to argue that the process of naming and defining ethnic groups, therefore, are political acts. They could be political decisions taken by the state, or they could also be political and cultural assertions of self-identification by communities. In some contexts, the claim for self-identification may lead to highlighting the distinctive community names; in another context, a broader category like the Zo people may be articulated as in North East India. In the case of “Zo people”, this could be related to the indeterminate disputes on naming within the ‘community’.[ix]  

Ethnicity is often explicitly or implicitly present in our everyday interactions, especially in a multicultural society like India. Although social scientists such as Weber questioned the significance of ethnicity in modern societies, it is difficult to envision a future without it. Ethnicity, like race, tribe, caste continues to be an identification method that individuals and institutions use today – whether through the census, affirmative action initiatives, non-discrimination laws, or only in day-to-day personal relations. But as we saw the very act of identification might change. The specificity of contexts cannot be overemphasised to understand the makings and remakings of ethnic boundaries.

[i] Wolfang Gabbert, ‘Concepts of Ethnicity’ in Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies, vol.1, no.1, 2006, p.86.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Hutchinson, John and Smith Anthony D. (1996). Introduction. in John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (eds.), Ethnicity (pp. 6-7). OUP.

[iv] Gilley, Bruce. (2004). Against the Concept of Ethnic Conflict. Third World Quarterly, 25(6), p.1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/0143659042000256959(accessed 10/09/2020).

[v] Smith, Anthony D. (1999). Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford University Press. p 262.

[vi] Borah, Partha Pratim and Rabin Deka. (2019). “We Are Not Assamese‟: Reflections On Ethnic Identity Formation In Contemporary Assam.  International Journal Of Scientific & Technology Research. 8(11): 2381-2385.

[vii] Barth, Fredrik. (1969). (ed.). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

[viii] Chaudhuri, Maitrayee (1998). Among my Own in Another Culture: Meeting the Asian Indian American in Meenakshi Thapan edited Anthropological Journeys: Reflections From the Field. Orient Longman, New Delhi.

[ix] Zou, David. (2010). A Historical Study of the ‘Zo’ Struggle. Economic and Political Weekly. 45(14): 56-63. Economic and Political Weekly.

***

Cihnnita Baruah is a Doctoral Candidate in the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi.