Points to Remember:
- The question focuses on the tribal reorganization following the bifurcation of Bihar.
- The answer requires factual knowledge about tribal groups in the region and their administrative merging after the state’s division.
Introduction:
The state of Bihar underwent bifurcation, resulting in the creation of Jharkhand on 15 November 2000. This significant administrative change led to the reorganization of several administrative units, including the restructuring of tribal communities. The process involved merging certain tribal groups based on geographical proximity, socio-cultural similarities, and administrative convenience. The question requires identifying which two tribes were merged as a consequence of this reorganization. This necessitates a review of the post-bifurcation tribal administrative changes in the affected regions.
Body:
Tribal Reorganization Post-Bifurcation: The formation of Jharkhand led to a significant reshuffling of tribal populations and their administrative categorization. The government aimed to streamline administration and better address the needs of the tribal communities within the newly formed states. This involved merging certain tribes that shared similar characteristics or were geographically close. While precise details of all mergers might not be publicly available in a single, easily accessible document, the question focuses on identifying a specific pair.
Analysis of Options:
The question presents four options, each suggesting a pair of tribes that may have been merged. To answer correctly, we need to consult relevant government records and historical data on tribal administration in Bihar and Jharkhand post-2000. Unfortunately, readily accessible, comprehensive data on specific tribal mergers is limited. However, we can analyze the given options:
- (A) Gond and Baiga: These tribes, while geographically proximate in parts of central India, are distinct and have separate identities. Their merger is unlikely.
- (B) Bithisana and Ho: These tribes have distinct cultural and linguistic characteristics, making their merger less probable.
- (C) Sabar and Hill Kharia: While definitive evidence of a formal merger is difficult to find without access to specific government records from that period, these tribes share geographical proximity in the areas affected by the Bihar bifurcation. This makes this option the most plausible.
- (D) Malpahariya and Sabar: Similar to option (B), these tribes have distinct identities, making their merger less likely.
Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the provided options and considering the geographical proximity and the lack of evidence for the other options, the most likely answer is (C) Sabar and Hill Kharia. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge the limitations of readily available public information on the precise details of tribal mergers following the Bihar bifurcation. Further research into official government records from that period would be necessary for definitive confirmation. A way forward would involve improving the accessibility of such data to facilitate better understanding of the historical administrative changes affecting tribal communities. This transparency is crucial for ensuring equitable governance and the preservation of tribal identities and cultures. Ultimately, the focus should remain on promoting the holistic development and well-being of all tribal communities in a sustainable and constitutionally sound manner.