In his article, Balakrishnan Rajagopal discusses ethnic cleansing and how it is often a consequence of development. Many of the issues he discusses are reflected in the development patterns of many developing nations. The case of India's Sardar Sarovar Dam illustrates many of the issues related to displacement caused by development. Also, it highlights how regulations intended to safeguard people from displacement can often be circumvented in order to meet development goals.
The Sardar Sarovar Dam has displaced 41,000 families and over 200,000 people since the project began. Though as the Rajagopal reading states, there are many laws that are intended to prevent ethnic cleansing. Development projects often have this impact on the communities in which they take place. This is true in the case of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and the Adivasis people. The Adivasi are believed to be the indigenous people of India and are the most severely impacted by displacement due to the building of the dam. This serves as an example of the ethnic cleansing that Rajagopal was referencing in his article. In this case one group of indigenous people were disproportionately displaced due to the construction of the dam.
Because of the Sardar Sarovar Dam project, many of the people struggle to maintain their culture. Cultural practices became harder to carry out due to the increased distance between people. Even close relatives are placed away from each other in their new communities. Both of these factors make it difficult to carry out a lifestyle that is consistent with their earlier practices. In addition, the manner in which people earn their livelihoods dramatically shifts as a consequence of developmental displacement. This is primarily due to the fact that the land used for the project was far more fertile than the new land to which the people were relocated. As a result, it was more difficult for the people to farm and provide food for themselves, their families, and for sale to the public. This relates to the lecture regarding ontological violence because displaced people in India are removed from everything they know and have experienced thus far. They are removed from their homes, families, culture, and economic resources. As a consequence of their displacement, they are no longer able to reference any of their past experiences or culture to help them survive in their new communities.
These issues are further emphasized by the fact that there has been little legal intervention preventing the displacement of the Adivasi. Laws that were meant to prevent ethnic cleansing have not been applied to development projects. These considerations are often ignored in the pursuit of development projects that are believed to progress India's development objectives. In addition, planners do not consider moving the people as a community and instead place them in a way that is most convenient for the project. This leads to the aforementioned separated families and broken community ties.
The displacement of the Adivasi due to the construction of the dam illustrates how local communities can fall victim to ethnic cleansing despite laws intended to prevent it. In addition, it demonstrates how displacement, especially when done with little consideration for the people, can lead to the destruction of communities and ultimately to the loss of highly valued cultural practices. Though it is not popularly viewed as violence, unbridled development can violently dismantle the lives of affected people in a way that significantly removes them from their current realities. Perhaps it is possible to implement development strategies that will reduce adverse impacts on local communities. However, if the concerns of displaced people remain ignored, violence against these groups will continue far into the future.
Interesting post Kayla. You hit on one of the reasons for environmental violence that Peluso and Watts state, conservation attempts. Do you think that this is something that we should study alongside other types of environmental violence such as armed conflict and crime? Or is this something different but no less serious?
ReplyDeleteI think that this is something that should be studied alongside armed conflict and crime. Though indigenous people may not die or be killed from conservation attempts, all of these things have the potential to destroy the livelihoods of local people and to disrupt their communities. Also, just as crime and armed conflicts can lead to a cycle of violence within communities, conservation efforts can be taken too far. This has the potential to create a cycle of violence against people like the Adivasi in the name of conservation.
DeleteI think this issue is worth not only further study, but also to act. In science, much is said on the importance of biodiversity. Conservationists believe that each different organism has importance in the future, especially as we come to better understand the genome of all species. Others argue that natural selection should eliminate weaker species, and that the loss of species is a natural cycle of life. Cultural fixtures and beliefs are not specie, nor are they bound by a "natural law." In fact, the different types of culture we see in our own species is not only what makes us different but also a catalyst for many of our own works.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed. This is a problem that is unknown to a lot of people. Awareness should be raised and hopefully indigenous people will be better protected from similar situations as this in the future.
ReplyDelete