Defining Indigenous, Native, Tribal, and Ethnic Peoples: Nationality, Citizenship, and the United Nations Framework

Abstract

As many concepts are loosely talked about in public discourses in the present context of Manipur, this paper just examines the conceptual and legal definitions of indigenous peoples, native peoples, tribal and non-tribal peoples, ethnic groups, and nationalities, drawing upon international law, sociology, and anthropology. It highlights how these categories intersect within frameworks developed by the United Nations (UN) and International Labour Organization (ILO). The paper explains the evolution of the UN’s working definition of indigenous peoples, differentiates between tribal and non-tribal identities, and discusses the meanings of civic and cultural nationality as well as the idea of permanent citizenship. Through a comparative and analytical approach, the discussion demonstrates that these categories are dynamic, politically constructed, and central to debates about identity, belonging, and rights in the modern world.

Keywords: Indigenous peoples, tribal peoples, ethnicity, nationality, civic nationalism, cultural nationalism, permanent citizenship, United Nations, ILO, identity

1. Introduction

Human societies are composed of multiple layers of identity – cultural, territorial, linguistic, and political. Concepts such as indigenous peoples, native peoples, tribal groups, ethnic groups, and nationalities have been central to understanding how communities define belonging and claim rights within states. While these terms overlap, they are not synonymous. Indigenous and tribal have acquired distinct meanings in international law, while ethnic and national categories operate primarily in sociological and political domains.

The rise of indigenous rights movements and the codification of their claims by the United Nations (UN) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have given new legal and moral force to these identities. Similarly, the distinction between civic and cultural nationality reveals competing visions of citizenship, inclusion, and cultural heritage. The concept of permanent citizenship further adds complexity by exploring the depth and durability of belonging in the modern state.

This paper analyzes these categories systematically. It begins with the evolving international definitions of indigenous and tribal peoples, contrasts them with native and ethnic categories, and explores their relationship to nationality and citizenship.

2. Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: Evolution and Definition

2.1 Historical Context

The concept of indigenous derives from the Latin indigena (“born of the land”), while tribe originates from the Latin tribus, used by the Romans to denote kin-based political units. Historically, European colonial administrations classified colonized peoples as tribal or primitive populations. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, “tribe” was a category of governance and anthropology, often imposed to describe small-scale societies outside the state system (Southall, 1970).

However, after World War II and the era of decolonization, indigenous and tribal peoples began to be recognized as distinct political subjects with collective rights. This marked a transition from anthropological labelling to rights-based recognition.

2.2 ILO Convention No. 107: The Early Definition

The first international instrument to mention tribal and indigenous peoples was ILO Convention No. 107 (1957). It defined “tribal and semi-tribal populations” in independent countries as groups “whose social and economic conditions are at a less advanced stage than the other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions” (ILO, 1957, Article 1).

This definition reflected colonial hierarchies and an assimilationist approach – tribal and indigenous groups were viewed as underdeveloped segments to be integrated into the mainstream.

2.3 ILO Convention No. 169: The Rights-Based Shift

ILO Convention No. 169 (1989) replaced Convention 107 with a transformative approach. It recognized indigenous and tribal peoples as distinct communities possessing collective rights rather than as populations needing integration. Article 1(b) defined them as:

“Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization and who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.”

It also clarified that tribal peoples are those whose “social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated by their own customs or traditions” (ILO, 1989, Article 1[a]).

Thus, while all indigenous peoples may be considered tribal, not all tribal peoples are necessarily indigenous. Tribal emphasizes cultural and social distinctiveness within the state; indigenous adds a dimension of historical continuity and colonization.

2.4 The UN’s Martínez Cobo Definition

The most widely accepted UN formulation came from José R. Martínez Cobo’s Study on the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations (1986). Cobo defined indigenous communities as those:

“Having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing, form non-dominant sectors, and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity” (Cobo, 1986, para. 379).

Cobo emphasized two defining principles: historical continuity and self-identification. Importantly, he noted that tribal peoples may share many of these characteristics even if they are not direct descendants of pre-colonial populations.

2.5 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations, 2007) refrained from providing a fixed definition but affirmed the right of self-identification and the collective rights of indigenous peoples to autonomy, culture, and territory. UNDRIP’s silence on “tribal” groups does not exclude them; rather, it assumes that states using the term tribal (e.g., India’s “Scheduled Tribes”) can apply similar rights principles where appropriate.

2.6 Indigenous and Tribal in National Contexts

In some countries, such as India, the term tribal (Adivasi) refers to communities constitutionally recognized as Scheduled Tribes, while indigenous is used more broadly in global human rights contexts. In Latin America and the Arctic, the term indigenous is predominant, while in Africa, tribal continues to denote culturally distinct communities (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2005).

The distinction between tribal and non-tribal is thus context-dependent, shaped by colonial histories and postcolonial legal frameworks. Non-tribal groups typically form the dominant or mainstream populations of a state, enjoying structural advantages in political and economic life.

3. Native Peoples and Non-Tribal Populations

3.1 The Meaning of “Native”

The term native refers broadly to those born in a specific region or descended from its original inhabitants. Unlike indigenous, it does not necessarily imply colonization or marginalization. In some contexts, native carries local or ethnic connotations – for example, Native Hawaiians in the United States or Native Fijians (iTaukei) in Fiji (Smith, 1999).

However, postcolonial scholarship (Said, 1978; Smith, 1999) has problematized the term for its colonial baggage, as European powers used “native” to denote subjugated peoples.

3.2 Native and Non-Tribal Relationships

While indigenous and tribal identities often overlap, native can include both tribal and non-tribal populations that claim ancestral ties to a particular land. For instance:

In Africa, “native” can refer to autochthonous groups distinct from migrant settlers (Geschiere, 2009).

In India, some caste-based agricultural communities claim nativity but not tribal status, distinguishing them from Scheduled Tribes.

In Southeast Asia, “sons of the soil” movements (e.g., in Malaysia) express native belonging that is ethnic but not necessarily tribal.

3.3 Non-Tribal Peoples

Non-tribal populations generally represent settled, agrarian, or urbanized groups integrated into the dominant social order. They are often the political and economic mainstream against which tribal or indigenous identities are defined. However, the tribal–non-tribal dichotomy is not absolute; it reflects evolving relationships of power, land use, and modernization.

In India, for example, “non-tribal” refers to communities outside the Scheduled Tribe list, while in Africa, it may denote ethnic groups that have assimilated into national economies and political systems (Kuper, 2003).

4. Ethnic Peoples and Ethnic Groups

4.1 Defining Ethnicity

Ethnicity derives from the Greek ethnos, signifying a community united by common heritage, language, and culture. Sociologist Max Weber (1922/1978) defined an ethnic group as a human group that believes in shared descent due to similarities of customs or memory of colonization. Anthropologist Fredrik Barth (1969) argued that ethnicity is constructed through boundaries rather than intrinsic cultural content – groups maintain distinctiveness by defining who belongs and who does not.

4.2 Tribal and Ethnic Overlaps

Tribal and ethnic identities often intersect. Tribal communities are typically understood as ethnic groups organized through kinship, territory, and shared culture. However, while all tribal groups are ethnic, not all ethnic groups are tribal. Urban ethnic minorities, for instance, may lack the territorial or kinship basis typical of tribal societies.

Characteristic	Tribal Group	Ethnic Group
Basis of identity	Kinship, territory, customary law	Shared culture, ancestry, language
Social structure	Small-scale, clan-based	Can be dispersed or urbanized
Political position	Often marginal or autonomous	Can be dominant or minority
Legal recognition	Often protected under tribal/indigenous laws	Recognized under minority rights

4.3 Ethnic Groups and Indigenous Rights

While ethnic groups claim equality and recognition, indigenous and tribal peoples demand autonomy and restitution. Ethnic groups may be part of the dominant nation (e.g., Han Chinese), whereas indigenous or tribal peoples are typically marginalized (Niezen, 2003).

Internationally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 27 protects the cultural rights of ethnic minorities, while UNDRIP and ILO 169 go further in granting collective rights to indigenous and tribal groups.

5. Nationality, Civic Nationality, and Cultural Nationality

5.1 Defining Nationality

Nationality denotes both legal membership in a state and cultural belonging to a nation (Shaw, 2017). Legally, it determines citizenship and diplomatic protection. Sociologically, it signifies membership in an “imagined community” bound by shared memory and solidarity (Anderson, 1983).

5.2 Civic Nationality

Civic nationality defines belonging through shared political principles rather than ethnicity. It is inclusive, based on consent, and grounded in legal equality. Ernest Renan (1882) conceptualized the nation as a “daily plebiscite,” emphasizing voluntary association. France and the United States exemplify civic nationalism, where citizenship is independent of ethnicity or tribe.

5.3 Cultural Nationality

Cultural or ethnic nationalism bases national identity on shared heritage, ancestry, and language. Johann Gottfried Herder viewed nations as organic cultural wholes. This model underpins Japan’s minzoku identity or the ethnic majoritarianism seen in some South Asian states. Cultural nationalism may marginalize tribal or indigenous minorities who do not fit the dominant heritage.

5.4 Civic, Cultural, and Tribal Intersections

Most states combine civic and cultural elements. India’s constitutional model of civic equality coexists with strong cultural nationalism tied to majority identity. Canada balances civic nationalism with recognition of First Nations and Inuit as indigenous nationalities. The challenge lies in integrating tribal and non-tribal peoples within inclusive civic frameworks while respecting their cultural autonomy.

6. The Concept of Permanent Citizens

6.1 Citizenship and Belonging

Citizenship implies full membership in the political community, encompassing civil, political, and social rights (Marshall, 1950). The idea of permanent citizens captures both the legal permanence of membership and the sociocultural rootedness of belonging.

However, permanence is contested – minorities, migrants, or tribal peoples may hold legal citizenship but face exclusion from full participation or recognition.

6.2 Tribal and Non-Tribal Dimensions of Citizenship

In plural societies, citizenship often mirrors tribal and non-tribal divides. Non-tribal populations may dominate political institutions, while tribal citizens remain peripheral despite constitutional guarantees. For example, tribal peoples in India enjoy protective discrimination through Scheduled Tribe status, yet face land alienation and cultural assimilation pressures (Xaxa, 2005).

Indigenous and tribal peoples’ concept of belonging transcends state boundaries – it is rooted in ancestral permanence and stewardship over land. This stands in contrast to the state’s territorial and legal definition of citizenship.

6.3 Permanent Citizenship and Self-Determination

For indigenous and tribal communities, permanent citizenship entails recognition of their inherent and continuous relationship to territory, culture, and governance. The UNDRIP (2007) and ILO 169 affirm that indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to self-determination within the state – to preserve their distinct institutions while participating fully as citizens.

7. Conclusion

The categories of indigenous, tribal, native, ethnic, and national identity illustrate the complex interplay between culture, history, and political power. Indigenous and tribal peoples share ancestral continuity and distinctive institutions, though indigenous emphasizes historical colonization and tribal focuses on cultural and social organization. Native and ethnic peoples reflect broader cultural belonging, while non-tribal populations generally constitute the dominant or mainstream sectors of the state.

The United Nations’ definition of indigenous peoples, shaped by the Martínez Cobo study and codified in UNDRIP, represents a milestone in human rights discourse. It recognizes that self-identification, historical continuity, and collective rights are essential to cultural survival. Integrating tribal and non-tribal groups into equitable civic frameworks remains a major global challenge.

Civic and cultural nationalities represent different paths to unity – one grounded in shared citizenship, the other in shared heritage. The concept of permanent citizenship seeks to ensure that belonging – whether tribal or non-tribal – is secure, inclusive, and participatory.

Ultimately, these categories are not fixed descriptions but political tools. They express the struggle of peoples – indigenous, tribal, ethnic, and national – to define themselves, reclaim their lands, and negotiate dignity within the modern state.

References

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. (2005). Report of the African Commission’s Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities. Banjul: ACHPR.
• Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.
• Barth, F. (Ed.). (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture difference. Little, Brown.
• Cobo, J. R. M. (1986). Study of the problem of discrimination against indigenous populations. United Nations, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4.
• Geschiere, P. (2009). The perils of belonging: Autochthony, citizenship, and exclusion in Africa and Europe. University of Chicago Press.
• Horowitz, D. L. (2000). Ethnic groups in conflict (2nd ed.). University of California Press.
• Hutchinson, J., & Smith, A. D. (Eds.). (1996). Ethnicity. Oxford University Press.
• International Labour Organization. (1957). Convention No. 107 concerning the protection and integration of indigenous and other tribal and semi-tribal populations in independent countries. Geneva: ILO.
• International Labour Organization. (1989). Convention No. 169 concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries. Geneva: ILO.
• Kuper, A. (2003). The return of the native: Current anthropology and the politics of indigeneity. Current Anthropology, 44(3), 389–402.
• Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multicultural odysseys: Navigating the new international politics of diversity. Oxford University Press.
• Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge University Press.
• Niezen, R. (2003). The origins of indigenism: Human rights and the politics of identity. University of California Press.
• Renan, E. (1882). What is a nation? In Modern political doctrines (1996 ed., pp. 179–191). Cambridge University Press.
• Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
• Shaw, M. N. (2017). International law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. Penguin.
• Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
• Southall, A. (1970). The illusion of tribe. In P. C. W. Gutkind (Ed.), The passing of tribal man in Africa (pp. 28–50). Brill.
• United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295). United Nations General Assembly.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)
• Xaxa, V. (2005). Politics of language, religion and identity: Tribes in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(13), 1363–1370.

(The author holds a MA degree in Applied Conflict Transformation Studies of Pannasastra University of Cambodia.)