Gond Rajas of Garha-Mandla and Chanda are examples of an adivasi aristocracyDisruptions during Mughal and colonial periods

Disruptions during Mughal and colonial periods
Although considered uncivilized and primitive,[34] adivasis were
usually not held to be intrinsically impure by surrounding (usually,
caucasoid - Dravidian or Aryan) caste Hindu populations, unlike
Dalits, who were.[7][35] Thus, the adivasi origins of Maharshi
(Sanksrit: Great Sage) Valmiki, who composed the Ramayana Hindu
religious epic, were acknowledged,[36] as were the origins of adivasi
tribes such as the Grasia and Bhilala, which descended from mixed
Rajput and Bhil marriages.[37][38] Unlike the subjugation of the
dalits, the adivasis often enjoyed autonomy and, depending on region,
evolved mixed hunter-gatherer and farming economies, controlling their
lands as a joint patrimony of the tribe.[34][39][40] In some areas,
securing adivasi approval and support was considered crucial by local
rulers,[7][41] and larger adivasi groups were able to sustain their
own kingdoms in central India.[7] The Gond Rajas of Garha-Mandla and
Chanda are examples of an adivasi aristocracy that ruled in this
region, and were "not only the hereditary leaders of their Gond
subjects, but also held sway over substantial communities of non-
tribals who recognized them as their feudal lords."
This relative autonomy and collective ownership of adivasi land by
adivasis was severely disrupted by the advent of the Mughals in the
early 16th century. Similarly, the British beginning in the 18th
century added to the consolidation of feudalism in India, first under
the jagirdari system and then under the zamindari system.[43]
Beginning with the Permanent Settlement imposed by the British in
Bengal and Bihar, which later became the template for a deepening of
feudalism throughout India, the older social and economic system in
the country began to alter radically.[44][45] Land, both forest areas
belonging to adivasis and settled farmland belonging to non-adivasi
peasants, was rapidly made the legal property of British-designated
zamindars (landlords), who in turn moved to extract the maximum
economic benefit possible from their newfound property and subjects
without regard to historical tenure or ownership.[46] Adivasi lands
sometimes experienced an influx of non-local settlers, often brought
from far away (as in the case of Muslims and Sikhs brought to Kol
territory)[47] by the zamindars to better exploit local land, forest
and labor.[43][44] Deprived of the forests and resources they
traditionally depended on and sometimes coerced to pay taxes, many
adivasis were forced to borrow at usurious rates from moneylenders,
often the zamindars themselves.[48][49] When they were unable to pay,
that forced them to become bonded laborers for the zamindars.[50]
Often, far from paying off the principal of their debt, they were
unable even to offset the compounding interest, and this was made the
justification for their children working for the zamindar after the
death of the initial borrower.[50] In the case of the Andamanese
adivasis, long isolated from the outside world in autonomous
societies, mere contact with outsiders was often sufficient to set off
deadly epidemics in tribal populations,[51] and it is alleged that
some sections of the British government directly attempted to destroy
some tribes. Land dispossession and subjugation by British and zamindar interests
resulted in a number of adivasi revolts in the late eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries, such as the Santal hul (or Santal revolt)
of 1855-56.[53] Although these were suppressed ruthlessly by the
governing British authority (the East India Company prior to 1858, and
the British government after 1858), partial restoration of privileges
to adivasi elites (e.g. to Mankis, the leaders of Munda tribes) and
some leniency in tax burdens resulted in relative calm, despite
continuing and widespread dispossession, from the late nineteenth
century onwards.[47][54] The economic deprivation, in some cases,
triggered internal adivasi migrations within India that would continue
for another century, including as labor for the emerging tea
plantations in Assam. Tribal classification criteria and demands
Scarification, a traditional symbol of Great Andamanese tribal
identity (1901 photo)Population complexities, and the controversies
surrounding ethnicity and language in India, sometimes make the
official recognition of groups as adivasis (by way of inclusion in the
Scheduled Tribes list) political and contentious. However, regardless
of their language family affiliations, Australoid and Negrito groups
that have survived as distinct forest, mountain or island dwelling
tribes in India and are often classified as adivasi.[56] The
relatively autonomous Mongoloid tribal groups of Northeastern India
(including Khasis, Apatani and Nagas), who are mostly Austro-Asiatic
or Tibeto-Burman speakers, are also considered to be adivasis: this
area comprises 7.5% of India's land area but 20% of its adivasi
population.[57] However, not all autonomous northeastern groups are
considered adivasis; for instance, the Tibeto-Burman-speaking Meitei
of Manipur were once tribal but, having been settled for many
centuries, are caste Hindus.
It is also difficult, for a given social grouping, to definitively
decide whether it is a 'caste' or a 'tribe'. A combination of internal
social organization, relationship with other groups, self-
classification and perception by other groups has to be taken into
account to make a categorization, which is at best inexact and open to
doubt.[59] These categorizations have been diffuse for thousands of
years, and even ancient formulators of caste-discriminatory legal
codes (which usually only applied to settled populations, and not
adivasis) were unable to come up with clean distinctions.[60]