Anthropologies of Touch in the Folk Songs of the Gond Tribes of Madhya Pradesh: Tanvi Gurjar

Introduction

This essay uses a structuralist approach to conduct a metaphysical analysis of touch in the folk songs and poems of the Gond inhabitants of Madhya Pradesh. I trace the anthropologies of touch under dynamic configurations from 1890–1935 by building on Green’s (2018) Social Somatic Theory, which explores “how our bodies and somatic experiences are inscribed by the cultures in which we live” (Green, 69), to highlight how invoking touch enables the universalization of knowledge. Subsequently, I argue that the value transformations that touch undergoes reflect the formation of kinship, memetic identities, and different moral systems. Specifically, I explore the use of touch as a tool in the construction of the normative reality that presupposes somatic function. 

Four folk songs, taken from “Songs of the Forest” (1935), a compilation of English translated Gondi folk songs by Verrier Elwin and Shamrao Hivale, constitute the primary texts for analysis in this essay. These include two types of folksongs: a Karma and a Saila. The Karma is a folksong that is structurally composed of short refrains. It derives its name from the Karma/Karam tree (Nauclea parvifolia) and is danced in  celebration of the harvest by men and women (Elwin & Hivale 45). The Saila on the other hand, is a ceremonial folksong which may or may not be celebratory. The song is commonly accompanied by a type of a stick dance called “Dandar Pata”. Men and women are stand on one leg, physically supported by each other (i.e, by joining arms) in a circular formation whilst dancing to a Karma and Saila (Elvin & Hivale 45–46). Thus, touch is intrinsic to the performative forms of both songs, and is an apropos instrument for making inquiries into cultural values shaped by the underlying social environment. 

1. Symbolizing kinship and forming memetic identities through touch:

The following Saila, helps demonstrate structure and social practices of the fishing community. 1897 onwards fishing communities in the Central Provinces were organized into fishing cooperatives operating on grounds leased by the Nagar Nigam and the Janpad Panchayat (Singh et al.). Acquiring subsequent leases depended on the profitability of a cooperative’s fishing yields, creating intense competition between different fishing castes (Gadgil & Malhotra 1983). In the face of the same, I argue that the following Saila uses touch to propagate intra-caste cohesion by implying that communal values are a natural order, for example, in the instance of touch that unifies fish as they collectively swim up the river: 

“As the fish go up the river, 

They join fin to fin,

And they all go up together.”

The above refrain highlights the power of touch to simultaneously dissolve and reinforce social hierarchies. On the one hand, participation creates temporary equality, enabling the community members to transcend social hierarchies through touch. 

On the other hand, touch is also used to indoctrinate hierarchies. Here, for example, stratified tool-making impels occupational hierarchies:

“Take your chapar and go a-fishing. 

Who makes the kumni?

Who makes the bissera?

Who makes the chapar?”

The bissera and chapar are traditional fishing traps made of intricately woven bamboo splints, and the kumni is a type of seine net that targets large carps and minnows belonging to genera like Ctenopharyngodon, Hypophthalmichthys, Puntius, Labeo, and Catla. Another trap– the bissera– is basket-like trap and less selective than the chapar, and is therefore used to catch a wider range of fish. Of the fish targeted by the bissera, some are benthic, while others are generalists such as species of Cirrhinus, Labeo, Osteobrama and Puntius, and yet others like Garra sp., Catla sp., Parapsilorhyncus sp. are rheophilic. Such specialized habitat use by different fish suggests that the design of a bissera and its subsequent placement in a waterbody can affect the number of fish it traps. Finally, the chapar is a highly specialized trap made of 8-12 bamboo sticks attached to a terminal web-like structure to catch benthic carnivorous fish, like snakeheads (Channa sp.), catfish (Clarias sp.), eels (Mastacembelus sp.), and knife-fish (Notopterus sp.) among others (Chourey et al., Singh & Singh 548). This shows that the varied ecological habits of the fish would have demanded expert knowledge of the waterscape, tool-making and their use. Therefore, this lends support to fishing as a learnt skill resulting in occupational hierarchies to ensure successful catches. That occupational hierarchies were necessary to ensure successful catches is also reinforced in the next refrain:

“Little brother makes the kumni. 

Big brother makes the bissera and chapar.”

Here, it is important to note that the different gears that evolved within fishing castes, and even ways of casting a seine net are known to be caste-specific (Deb 112–114). Deb (116–121) theorized a cultural threshold necessary for the transmission of skills, below which occupational niches would disappear, potentially intensifying inter-caste and resource competition. Therefore, the rigid occupational identities depicted above can be inferred as a form of memetic preservation to maintain a local socio-economic and cultural stronghold, especially in a colonial land-rights system.

Further, the above refrain also portrays the role of a family as a social unit in enforcing a strict social order wherein occupational hierarchies were internalized through the use of touch. Dancing to a Saila required the dancers to link arms and thus, touch likely became a widely used for disseminating the values institutionalized at the family level, buttressing the family as an institution. I argue that touch is therefore corporeal to the Saila’s form and lyrics in conserving the social rubric of culturally bound hierarchies, while the poignance of a shared somatic experience subsidizes conformity, which helps preserve memetic identities.

The final refrain uses word-play to substitute the school of fish (i.e. nature) by a tribe of fishermen (i.e. human). 

“As the fish go up the river, 

They join fin to fin,

And they all go up together.”

Here, humans appear as Vavilovian mimics of nature (McElroy 212), thus rationalizing the human role in nature as a way of sustaining ecological balance. In this sense, touch operationalizes the feeling of a shared socio-somatic lineage, which allows the cultural transcendence of boundaries separating human and animal existence and thus internalizes naturalism into the tribal way of life. 

2. Economizing morality through touch

2.1 Transactional touch and depravity

The following song is a Karma narrating a bargain between a man and a stranded woman. The woman’s helplessness in the face of calamity despite all her material possessions clarifies her subordination in the following lines:

“O flooded is the river, its stream is swirling by, 

Help me, O help me, across the rushing water!

But what will you give me when we have crossed over?

I will give you a beautiful ring from my finger, 

If you’ll take me across the river. 

But what will I do with the ring from your finger? 

I will give you the bangle from my arm,

And the chain from round my neck, 

If you’ll take me across the river.”

This refrain depicts the grim yet frequently lived reality of the Gonds during the declining socio-economic conditions of the Central Provinces in the years following 1890 (Baker). Describing the woman’s jewellery generically– which I argue to be an intentional oversight– that may have allowed for easier internalization of bargains of one’s material possessions for survival. Further, the woman’s jewellery (her bangles, ring, and chain) not only suggest that she is married but also indicate the increasing Hindu aspirationalism among the Gonds after the late 1800s (Baker 352), thus confirming the dominance of the Hindu castes at the time (Baker 345). Irrespective of this, the inhumane treatment meted out to the Gond people by dominant castes, large landholders, and the bureaucracy made them apprehensive of help, in the rare instances when it was provided (Baker 362–63). The Gonds and other tribes preferred, instead, to flee to forests in search of food and shelter– an attempt that cost several lives (Baker 362-63). Of the ones that successfully fled to forests, several died of cholera, starvation, malaria, and dysentery due to governmental indifference to the 1890s famines (Baker 361-63). 

As the Karma progresses, the man’s questions shatter the notion that the exchange thus far has been a negotiation:

“But what will I do with one of your bangles, 

What do I want with the chain from your neck?”

Here, the man’s crudely disguised indifference and baiting of the woman’s desperation exemplifies the attitude of the bureaucracy. We see that the woman is acutely aware of this pervasive power-play that drives her to commodify herself in the next refrain:

“Then when you have taken me over the river

You may fondle my breast and find happiness there.

Only do take me over the river.”

The woman surrendering her bodily autonomy is telling of the severe inefficiency of regional infrastructure and relief preparedness to combat the then regular natural disasters. For example, the road infrastructure in the Central Provinces’ dense forested hills improved only after the early 1900s, but this too, only negligibly improved tribal social welfare till 1920 (Baker 363).

Further, in the refrain, the man’s disinterest suggests that touch is construed as perverse when it is a means with an incomplete end. 

“But why should I want to fondle your breast?”

In the next refrain, we see that the value of touch has fully transformed into a transaction:

“You may even enjoy me a night and day, 

Only take me across the river.”

“Then we’ll stay together a night a day,

When I’ve taken you over the river.” 

The above refrain commodifies touch and uses longevity and satisfaction as deterministic of its value. The transactionalization of touch, therefore, rationalizes its commodification. Given Max Scheler’s definition of morality as “a system of preferences” (Scheler 27–28), the here commodified touch forms the underpinning of criminal morality. Additionally, the man’s use of “stay” contrasted with the woman’s use of “enjoy” suggests that euphemistic language lets him introduce criminal morality in this interaction without being implicated by it. By parasitizing on the transformed value of touch, its believers are able to dodge a perverse self-image. The transactionalization of touch therefore feeds a morally corrupt framework that intensifies depravity by normalizing coercion. This in turn, lets the adherents this framework parasitize on the transformed value of touch, serving also as a way for them to dodge a perverse self-image.

2.2 Aggressive touch and morality:

The following Karma shows how externalizing blame justifies aggressive touch: 

“O you dumb girl, I would like to shake you.

Even a cat says miaow, miaow!

Even a fox cries feh, feh!

But you dumb girl say nothing, and I’d like to shake you.”

Here, the speaker rationalizes his desire for aggressive touch as the only way to break her stupor by labelling her “dumb”. This portrays touch as a moral agent in setting the standards of consequentialism. In doing so, the use of touch transforms the zemiological experience, normalizing perverse value distortions of touch (Scheler 28). This creates a behavioural affect that is repressive, creating a behavioural loop that sustains the transformed values.

2.3 Grief and touch

In a series of songs revolving around death, one song addresses the acceptance of death and sorrow by invoking a shared somatic experience. I posit that invoking a shared somatic experience is a reaction to the dialectical relationships between the Indian State and the Gond community between 1890 and1930, a period that saw innumerable deaths from malnutrition, cholera, TB, and frequent natural disasters (Baker 345, 261–63). Several of these can be attributed to 19th-century colonial policies, such as the Criminal Tribes Act and the Forest Act, which typify disregard for tribal welfare (Baker 355, 367; Kurup 104–106). Such extractivist policies dispossessed the Gond people of their land and made the government’s role central in deciding land development, infrastructure, and the ensuing local socio-economic conditions. 

Dispossession of not only Gond lands but also individual agency succumbed to national apathy and systematized predatory mentalities. For the Gonds, this meant a dual impotence against death—one, institutional and the other, biological. 

The historic oppression, sterilized rebuttals, and persistent circumstantial impotence typify the preconditions allowing percolation of hatred and vindictiveness into the mind (Scheler 9—10). Therefore, invocation of a shared somatic experience, as depicted in the following Saila, likely allowed the community to prevent resentment from hijacking its cultural fabric. Within this framework, the community may have been able to equate the universality of touch with the universality of death to make space for grief and internalize loss amidst inequitable socio-economic conditions.

“Death will make entry in your body which is so beautiful, ….

…… O death will come to your body, your body which is so beautiful to me.”

Here, death embodies a force that enters the body, thus invoking touch. I argue that this creates a socio-somatic kinship to: i.) foster a metaphysical connection between the community and the dying person and ii) to mitigate the loss of community identity from dispossession. 

Discussion

This social dissonance enables multifarious value blindness (Scheler 13), ultimately normalizing perverse value transformations of touch (Scheler 78, 68). 

This essay demonstrates the value transformation of touch during the transition to a market economy. The broad socio-cultural ramifications of this include the transformation of a moral economy based on kinship into an immoral economy of extraction. Therefore, this essay shows how touch controls kinship and social cohesion (Green 70). When their socio-somatic moral value is undiluted, kinship is preserved through touch. However, under socio-economic duress, bureaucratic coercion disrupts kinship and social cohesion by putting the social strata out of touch with each other. This is seen, for example, in the woman’s increasing desperation against a despotic bureaucracy. The bureaucracy self-preserves (Scheler 68) by distorting socio-somatic values to create a new morality(s) by ranking these distorted values. Through this ranking, touch is commodified, and an economics of depravity emerges. Subsequently, dispossessed assets and agencies, which are actually forms of social harm, are economized as mere collaterals. And, within this new morality, the State grants itself zemiological immunity, which it uses for economic development by declassing discord. 

Conclusion

This essay enters documentations of somatic value from Gond folk songs into discourse, making it a reflexive tool for the subsequent theorization of the preconditions of somatic value. The functionalist inquiries of socio-somatic relationships made by this essay, however, are based on Western theories. Western schools of thought often dominate theory-building with direct implications for policy-making (Neubert 935, 939-941), which may be incorrectly positioned to analyse the underlying social systems. Therefore, future work could analyse similar texts through South Asian theories. Also of notable significance is that this essay has analysed English translations of Gondi folk songs. However, without the original linguistic material several socio-culturally important contextualizations may simply get lost in translation. Therefore, future documentation should include the original as well as the translated versions, and base any analyses on the originals. Finally, community participation in reflexive theory-building that strives to clarify the sociological relevance of different philosophical schools could be important to validate and empower marginalized communities.