Download EX-CRIMINAL TRIBES AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES The

EX-CRIMINAL TRIBES AND
CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES
The existence of about two hundred
groups of ex-criminal tribes numbering
nearly six million population is a peculiar
phenomenon in the Indian sub-continent.
Traditionally the criminal tribes were said
to be following the criminal occupations
such as stealing, robbery, dacoity, etc., for
their livelihood and hence they were called
Criminal Tribes.
The Criminal Tribes were wandering from
village to village and looting the villagers.
The Government was unable to control
these groups and as such the Government of
India under British rule passed the Criminal
Tribes Act in 1871 with a view to control
the wandering criminal tribes. Since then
organized crime as a group phenomenon
was recognized. Whoever belonged to such
tribes, both children and adults, irrespective
of sex, whether guilty of crime or not, were
considered to be criminals. The Act was
amended a number of times with
a view to control and wean the
criminal tribes away from their nefarious
acts. After India became a Republic, the
C. T. Act was felt to be against the spirit
of the Indian Constitution and new Indian
ideals, and consequently the C.T. Act was
repealed in 1952. In its place, the Habitual
Offenders Act was passed. With the repeal
of the C.T. Act the tribes came to be known
as Vimukta Jatis or Denotified Tribes. But
while the legal stigma hitherto attached to
the tribals was removed, the social stigma,
in fact, has continued ever since.
The phenomenon of crime as it occurs
among the ex-criminal tribes is peculiar in
Y. C. SIMHADRI*
a number of ways: (1) criminal behaviour
is transmitted from one generation to another, (2) the criminal tribe as a whole
accepts criminal activities as its traditional
occupation and consequently (3) the law
recognizes tribal crime as a group phenomenon. In what follows is an attempt made
to examine the validity or non-validity of
the existing criminological theories to explain the behaviour of the criminal tribes.
BIOLOGICAL
Lombroso affirmed that the criminals were
born and inherited the qualities of criminality from their parents. As an example
he cited the criminal tribes of India
(Wolfgang, 1960:209). He emphasized the
strength of congenital impulsiveness as the
main causal factor in the occurrence of
crime. He refuted the then prevailing theory
of "free will". Subsequently, however, the
Lombrosian theory was criticized by Tarde
(Vine, 1954) and Goring (Driver, 1957).
In India a study was conducted by
Mazumdar on various castes including
criminal tribes. He found no differences of
blood groups and physical features among
the different caste groups including criminal
tribal groups. To quote Kapadia:
"Mazumdar observes that there is a progressive broadening of the head from the
Eastern to the Western districts of U.P.
among the vagrant and criminal sections
of the tribal population showing perhaps
assimilation of a brachy-cephalic element.
But the few measurements that he was given
* Dr. Y. C. Simhadri is lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Andhra
University, Waltair, Andhra Pradesh.
Hereafter it is called C. T. Act.
108
Y. C. SlMHADRI
viz., the Habura 73-71, the Bhatu 74-83 and
the Dom 73-79 (Criminal Tribes) show that
these groups are dolichocephals and closely
resemble their counterparts — the Parriyan
72 (Risley) the Chenchu 73-80 (Indian
Census 1931) in South India" (Kapadia,
1952:110).
As Venugopalarao stated, "In common
parlance, they (Criminal tribes) are called the
hereditary criminals of India but we have
no convincing proof that criminality is
passed from father to son biologically"
(Venugopalarao, 1962:24). Thus biological
theories do not seem to stand critical tests
any more.
ECONOMIC
Traditionally it is surmised that criminality is a function of poverty. Bonger (Van
Bemmelen, 1955), systematically linked
criminality with poor economic conditions.
Similarly, Biswas (1960), Gillin (1931) and
Bruce (1969) linked tribal criminality with
economic factors. Biswas studied criminal
colonies in the Delhi State. He found that
their expenditure exceeded their income;
as a result, they were forced to commit crime
in order to compensate their deficit budgets.
Gillin describes graphically the deplorable
conditions under which the tribals were
forced to commit crimes. He stated:
"It is easy to see that the bulk of the
population lives on the verge of starvation
most of the time. Let a famine come along
and millions die unless they are assisted by
government or relief organizations. Under
such conditions, which have extended over
decades, there is small wonder if whole
families and tribes have resorted to criminal
methods to get a living" (Gillin, 1931:106).
The following description further describes
the situation:
"When the first batches were brought into
the settlements, most of the men were clad
in rags. The women had hardly enough
clothing to cover their shame and children
upto twelve years of age or so, were stark
naked" (Gillin, 1931:107). But the economic
determinants do not explain why other
groups which have been living below the
level of hand to mouth existence were not
also criminals. In India Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes who are equally poor,
if not poorer, do not resort to crime. It
seems sound to think, then, that poor conditions may be a necessary but not a sufficient cause. The poor economic background
as a causal factor is unacceptable on two
grounds: (1) all persons with similar economic background do not resort to criminal
activity, and (2) in the same family, all persons may not become criminals even if they
are poor. Further, in economically developed countries with high crime rates, such
as the U.S.A., reduction of poverty has not
necessarily reduced criminal behaviour.
However, it should be conceded that the
economic factor is a necessary but not a
sufficient cause of crime among the tribals.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
Sociologists like Merton (Merton, 1967:
131-160) and others explained deviance in
terms of social structure. Merton derived
his theory of deviance from Durkheim's concept of anomie. American society, according to Merton, emphasizes certain "dominant-success goals" which are culturally prescribed, but the (Institutional) means for
achieving these goals are not always available. As a result, certain individuals deviate
from the normal means in order to achieve
the cultural goals. It is the restriction of
the use of approved means to achieve the
prescribed cultural goals from a considerable
part of the population (Merton, 1967:133)
that produces deviance. Specifically, Merton
mentioned that in the U.S.A. the lower
classes were placed relatively in a more disadvantageous position than were the upper
EX-CRIMINAL TRIBES AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES
classes. The American culture evenly prescribes goals irrespective of economic background, but socially structured means are
unevenly distributed. The disjunction between means and goals brings about deviance.
This is primarily a structural interpretation
of deviant behaviour in which the impact of
economic factors is recognized when it is
said that the lower classes tend to be more
deviant.
Patrick (1968:247) applied Melton's
theory to criminal tribes of India, particularly to Mang Garudi. He observed that
criminality of the Mang Garudi was a function of the Indian social structure in that
"They (Criminal tribes) experienced certain
conventional aspirations of Indian society
(desire for status, respect and subsistence)
but were lacking in socially structured means
by which they could realize those aspirations. The situation in which they were
engulfed was one of normlessness or
'anomie' " (Patrick, 1968: 247). The efficacy
of the means-ends schema to explain the
criminal behaviour of criminal tribes in preindependent Indian society which was based
mainly on ascribed status is doubtful, but
it is certainly useful to explain the criminality among the criminal tribes in postindependent India (Rangarao and Simhadri,
1972). Under the Constitution of India the
democratic principles such as equality,
liberty, etc., irrespective of caste, creed,
colour or origin are professed but the means
to achieve them are not equally available
to all. As a result, the sections, be they
criminal tribes or handicapped groups, which
cannot achieve the common goals, may take
to criminality. However, this theory does
not explain the criminality of a particular
group over an extended period of time.
109
But the delinquent justifies his deviance by
rationalizing that it is in conformity with
the norms of his subcultural group. Further,
the authors maintain that for the delinquents
their actions are not so dangerous as to
jeopardize the general society. Since the
criminal tribes think that it is their
Kulavrithi (Caste or tribal profession) guilt
feelings do not arise. As reported in the
study of an Andhra village (Simhadri, 1972)
the criminal tribes never felt guilty of their
criminal behaviour. Further, a given tribe
by transforming itself into a caste group
feels that thieving or committing a crime
is the legitimate occupation of its caste. It
may be, however, observed in the village
that not all tribals are criminals. Therefore,
the theory of "neutralization" does not explain the behavioural pattern of all those
who do not commit crimes.
DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION
Sutherland formulated a theory called
"Differential
Association"
(Sutherland,
1947:6-7). According to him criminal
behaviour is learned like other kinds of
behaviour-learned
in
association
with
others according to the frequency, intensity,
priority and duration of contacts. Crime
thus is a social phenomenon and not a
biological, or climatic phenomenon (Cressy,
1955:43). In other words, the theory emphasized association as a necessary condition
for learning criminal patterns of behaviour.
An excess of contacts and associations of
this kind causes criminality. The ratio between definitions (situations) favourable to
law and those unfavourable to law determines whether or not a person becomes criminal. A person becomes delinquent because
of an excess of definitions favourable to
violation of law over definitions unTECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION
favourable to violation of law.
Sykes and Matza (1957) believe that many
This theory seems relevant in explaining
delinquents do experience feelings of guilt. criminal behaviour among tribes. Each tribe
110
Y. C. SlMHADRI
restricts social contacts of its members to (Kvaracens and Miller, 1959:68-69). This
itself and as such criminal behaviour, as all idea is somewhat pertinent to us. A criminal
other behaviours, is transmitted from one tribe which as a social group has been
generation to another. In India, social following criminal behaviour for generations
groups, be they castes or tribes, tend to live transmits its behavioural pattern from one
together in a geographical area. The conse- generation to the other. It is a socioquent physical and social distance between historical accident that criminality became
lower castes and upper castes is wide and a part of the profession of these tribals.
the possibility of their mixing is minimal. Once the criminal activities became part of
Tribals, particularly criminal tribals, do not the tribal culture, such culture intrinsically
have many contacts with others. When there became law-violating and the deviant culis no chance of having contacts or associa- ture is transmitted from one generation to
tion with other social groups there is no the other.
possibility of learning the values of other
But this theory does not explain as to
castes or social groups. Naturally, tribals why in the same delinquency area some
learn their own values which are imme- children do not commit crimes. Studies
diately around them. As such the tribal conducted by Reckless (Reckless et al: 1957
family is the training ground for its children a & b) explained this discrepancy. They
to learn criminal behaviour. One of the found differences in self-conception as
functions of the family as explained by the reason for certain children residing in
Haikerwal was to begin to teach the tricks a delinquency area turning out to be delinof the trade (crime) the day a baby was quents and for others not becoming delinborn (Haikerwal, 1934:166).
quents of a slum area. The authors concluded: "Conception of self and others is
the differential response component that
LOWER CLASS CULTURE MILIEU AND
helps to explain why some succumb and
CONTAINMENT THEORY
others do not, why some gravitate toward
Miller and Reckless propounded theories socially unacceptable patterns of behaviour
called "Lower class culture Milieu" and and others veer away from them" (Reckless,
"Containment theory" respectively. The 1957 b). Reckless found out from his study
former is cultural in nature and the latter that both in criminally-oriented neighbouris socio-psychological. Miller's (1958:9) hoods and non-criminally-oriented neighthesis may be reduced to three main pro- bourhoods, criminals as well as delinquents
positions: 1. the lower class is characterized were the product of development of a unique
by distinct values, which undermine the concept of "self" and the conception of
legal codes, 2. these vary markedly from the "good" or "bad". Such a unique self-concepmiddle-class values, and 3. the result is that tion develops in the early stages of an indiviconformity with certain lower-class values dual's participation in community life.
may automatically result in violation of the Persons who develop an inner feeling
law. As Miller puts it, "engaging in certain that they are good would continue to be
cultural practices which comprise essential good and conform to the conventional
even
in
their
adulthood,
elements of the total life pattern of lower- society
class culture automatically violates certain whereas those who develop a feeling that
they are "bad" would be discouraged and
legal norms" (Miller, 1958:9).
In other words, the lower class way of try to be aloof from the conventional
life, as such, is intrinsically law-violating society and develop deviance. Among
111
EX-CRIMINAL TRIBES AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES
criminal tribes, criminal behaviour was
hitherto accepted as a conventional behaviour in terms of tribal culture. In
modern times, having come into contact
with the larger society, the tribals are trying to imbibe the values of the larger
society. With the result, the tribals have
come to realize that their behaviour is not
acceptable to the larger society. Though
Reckless said that his containment theory
was not good enough for the explanation
of traditional criminal behaviour of the
tribals as it is in the changing context of
the contact of the tribals with the larger
society and tribals imitation of the larger
culture, the theory seems to be good enough
to explain the occurrence of crime.
CONCLUSION
The biological theories could be ignored
as they are no more tenable. Social
scientists who concentrate on economic
factors are of two types: those who say
that economic factors alone are responsible, and those who say that economic factors may be a necessary cause, but not a
sufficient cause. Of the two, the latter is
Biswas,
1960
Bruce,
1969
Cohen,
1955
Cressy,
1955
P. D.
George.
K. Albert.
R. Donald.
Driver, Edwin D.
1957
Gillin, John Lewis.
1931
Glaser, D.
1956
Haikerwal, B. S.
1934
Kapadia, K. M.
1952
The
more acceptable. The theories of Sutherland, Miller, and Reckless in combination
very well explain the persistence of criminality among the criminal tribes. Sutherland's theory is applicable in the first
instance, due to its generic explanation of
learning of behaviour, criminal or noncriminal, with close contacts with associates in the family, neighbourhood and
tribes. Miller's theory explains that a particular cultural milieu which is intrinsically
law-violating is transmitted from one generation to the other. In the case of criminal
tribes by historical accident criminality
became a part of their culture and in this
way tribal culture became intrinsically
criminal and the deviant culture is passed
on through generations in the same cultural group. There are some who conform
to the norms of the larger society but they
are deviants in terms of traditional criminal tribal culture. As per Reckless's theory
the individuals who come into contact with
the larger society develop their "selves" as
"good" or "bad" and accordingly either
conform to their traditional values and
social norms or deviate from them.
REFERENCES
Ex-criminal Tribes of
Delhi
Slate,
Delhi:
University
of
Delhi.
The Slranglers: The Cult of Thuggee and its overthrow in British
India, New York. Harcourt, Bruce and World Co., Inc.
Delinquent Boys: A Culture of the Gang, New York: the Free
Press of Glencoe.
"Application and Verification of the Differential Association
Theory" Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police
Science, 4 3 : 43-52, May-June.
"Charles Buckman Goring" The Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology and Police Science, 47, 5, Jan-Feb.
Taming the Criminal, New York: The Macmillan Co.
"Criminality Theories and Behavioural Images", American
Journal of Sociology, 6 1 : 433-444, March.
Economic and Social Aspects of Crime in India, London: George
Allen and Unwin, Ltd.
"The Criminal Tribes of India", Sociological Bulletin, I. II
(March) 24.
Y. C. SIMHADRI
112
Kvaracens, W. C. and
Miller, W. B.
1959
Mamoria, C. B.
1957
1960
"Delinquent Behaviour Culture and the Individual" Washington,
D. C.: National Education Association 68-69.
Mannheim, H. (ed)
1960
Matza, David.
1964
Merton, K. Robert
1967
Miller, W. B.
1958
Patrick, A. Clarence
1968
Pioneers in Criminology, Chicago: Quadrange Books, Inc.
Rangarao, K and
Simhadri Yedla.
1972
Reckless, et al.
1956
Reckless, et al.
1957
Reckless, et al.
1957
Reckless, W. C.
1960
Simhadri, Yedla
1972
Sutherland, H. Edwin.
1947
Sykes, A. Gresham and
Matza, David.
1957
The Report of the
All India Inquiry
Committee
1949
Van Bemmelen, J. M.
1955
Venugopalarao, S.
1962
Vine, Margaret S.
Wilson
1954
Vold, B. George
1958
Wolfgang, Marvin, V.
1960
Tribal Demography in India, Bombay: Kitab Mahal.
Social Problems and Social Disorganization, Allahabad, India,
Kitab Mahal.
Delinquency and Drift, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: The Free Press.
"Lower class culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang
quency" Journal of Social Issues, 14, 3, 5 - 19.
"The Criminal Tribes of India, with special emphasis
Mang Garudi: A preliminary Report", Man in India,
July-Sept. 248.
"Denotified Tribes and the Larger Society", Voluntary
xiv 4 & 5 July-Oct. 32-33.
Delinon the
48. 8
Action,
"Self-concept as an Insulator Against Delinquency" American
Sociological Review, 21: 744-746.
"Self-component in Potential Delinquency and Non-Delinquency"
American Sociological Review, 22: 566-570.
"The Good Boy in a High Delinquency Area", Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48: 18-25.
"The Crime Problem", 3rd Ed. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
"Ex-Criminal Tribes of India: A Community Study", a Ph.D.
thesis submitted in 1972 to Case Western Reserve University
(Department of Sociology) Cleveland, Ohio. U.S.A.
Principles of Criminology, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co.
"Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency",
American Sociological Review, 22 December, 664-670.
Criminal Tribes of India.
"Willem Adriaan Bonger, 1876-1940", The Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science, 46, 3 Sept-Oct.
Facts of Crime in India, New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
"Gabriel Tarde" in Journal of Criminal, Criminology and Police
Science, 45, 1 June.
Theoretical Criminology, New York: Oxford University Press.
"Cesare Lombroso" in Hermann Mannheim (ed), Pioneers in
Criminology, Chicago: Quandrange Books, Inc.
The Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. XXXIV, No. 2, (July 1973)