Breaking down the question
The question asks for the distinguishing features of tribes — the attributes that mark them off from the wider Indian population, especially from caste-organised Hindu society. The phrase the rest of the population invites an implicit contrast, principally the tribe-caste distinction, so a strong answer builds its features against that backdrop rather than listing traits in a vacuum.
The examiner also expects awareness that these features are ideal-typical, not absolute. Indian tribes have long interacted with caste society, and the boundary is a continuum rather than a wall. The best scripts therefore present the classical markers and then qualify them, showing that the very difficulty of definition is itself sociologically significant.
For fuller treatment, see the note on tribes, integration and autonomy.
How to approach it
Open by noting that the tribe is notoriously hard to define, and that Indian usage settles administratively on the constitutional category of Scheduled Tribes. Then set out the distinguishing features in an organised sequence — territorial, demographic, economic, social, political, religious and psychological.
Use the classical scholarship as your spine: Majumdar and others on definitional criteria, Ghurye on the assimilationist reading, and Surajit Sinha on the tribe-caste continuum. Close by qualifying the contrast, stressing that the features describe a type rather than a sealed reality. Keep the treatment analytical and comparative throughout.
Model answer
A tribe is conventionally understood as a social group occupying a definite territory, sharing a common dialect, a sense of common descent, and a relatively self-contained economic and cultural life. In India the term acquires an administrative precision through the constitutional category of Scheduled Tribes, identified by indicators such as geographical isolation, distinctive culture, shyness of contact and economic backwardness. Several features distinguish tribes from the rest of the population.
The first is territoriality and isolation. Tribes have historically been associated with a bounded habitat — hills, forests and remote tracts — which fostered relative seclusion from the mainstream. This physical isolation, though never total, shaped a distinct way of life and limited absorption into caste society.
The second is common descent and endogamy. A tribe conceives of itself as a community of kin, often tracing origin to a common ancestor or totem, and it regulates marriage through clan exogamy within tribal endogamy. Kinship, rather than the ritual hierarchy of caste, is the organising principle of social life.
The third is a distinctive language and culture. Many tribes speak their own dialects and sustain oral traditions, folklore, dance and craft that differ from the surrounding population, marking a separate cultural identity.
The fourth is a subsistence economy. Tribal economies rest characteristically on hunting and gathering, shifting cultivation, forest produce and simple settled agriculture, with limited market integration, little private accumulation and a strong ethic of community sharing.
The fifth is a relatively egalitarian and community-based social order. In contrast to the graded inequality of caste, tribal society tends to lack the elaborate purity-pollution hierarchy, and status differences are comparatively muted. Age, kinship and personal ability count more than ritual rank.
The sixth is a distinct political organisation. Many tribes are governed through their own councils and headmen, with customary law and community consensus regulating disputes, standing apart from the wider administrative and caste-panchayat systems.
The seventh is religion. Tribal religions are commonly animistic and totemic, centred on nature spirits, ancestor worship and sacred groves, differing from the textual traditions of the dominant population, though considerable borrowing has occurred.
Finally, scholars such as D. N. Majumdar added a psychological dimension — a sense of belonging and a consciousness of being a people apart, which sustains tribal identity even amid change.
These features, however, must be read as ideal-typical. Ghurye argued that Indian tribes were largely backward Hindus, already partly assimilated into the caste fold, while Surajit Sinha's notion of a tribe-caste continuum showed that many groups have moved gradually towards caste-like organisation through Hinduisation and Sanskritisation. The distinguishing markers are therefore real but relative — they describe a pole on a continuum rather than a sealed and self-evident category.
In sum, tribes are distinguished by territoriality, common descent, distinctive language and religion, a subsistence economy, a relatively egalitarian order and a strong sense of collective identity. Yet the enduring value of the question lies in recognising that these features shade into the wider society, making the tribe as much a matter of degree as of kind.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners look for candidates who treat the tribe not as an obvious given but as a category with contested boundaries. The strongest scripts list the distinguishing features clearly — territory, descent, language, economy, egalitarianism, political form and religion — and then anchor the contrast in the tribe-caste distinction.
Marks accrue to those who add the qualifying move: citing Ghurye's assimilationist thesis and Sinha's continuum to show that the features are ideal-typical rather than absolute. A well-organised, comparative structure, precise use of the constitutional criteria and British spelling lift a 20-mark answer into the higher band, whereas an undifferentiated list without the caste contrast stays middling.