Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Much developments in modern day political anthropology are seen globally but South Asian social anthropology failed to critically explore the interconnectedness of the domains of kinship, politics and law mainly in stateless systems.

Paper long abstract:

Northeast India exemplifies multiple polity configuration and authority patterns amongst hills tribespeople who are stretched in acephalous 'tribes', chieftaincies, and 'kingdoms', which are implicitly recognised in federal arrangement of modern state. Sadly no critical analysis of indigenous polity, governmental and jural roles of social organization, native laws in organizing territorial units and impact of modern democratic institutions on them is made. This paper shows limitations of exported anthropological models in portrayal of social formation, territory, and modern ethnicity (secessionism) which have variously influenced the indigenous polities. It is urged that new paradigms need to be distinguished in place of concepts of government of acephalous / stateless 'tribes', 'Headmen' /'Big-men', territory and territorial competition. Using fresh field data the author provides comparison of varied models and flaws involved. Much developments in modern day political anthropology, and by extension 'legal anthropology', is seen globally but South Asian social anthropology failed to critically explore the interconnectedness of the domains of kinship, politics and law mainly in stateless systems, where conceptions of power, authority, rights and privileges are not confined only to unilineal descent groups and territorial divisions but spread through cognatic/matrifiliation and age- sets too. Transformation of clan/lineage elders/headmen as key figures in 'Law-Enforcement' and their 'accommodation' as new Avatar in modern federal organization, while adhering to 'customary law' based adjudication role, remain neglected area of study.