Anthropology in nation building: The Indian scenario
Anthropology in nation building: The Indian scenario ByProf. Abhijit Guha
Abstract
The mainstream discourse on nation building in India in its early phase excluded the contributions of the anthropologists, although there were solid empirical studies done by the latter, which have had remarkable relevance in the making of the new nation. Eminent anthropologists with their characteristic methodology of participatory fieldwork and ethnography painstakingly conducted valuable researches on the major challenges confronted by the leaders of independent India in its early years.
[Key
words: Nation building, Bengal famine, Resettlement, Refugees, Displacement].
Anthropology on the
margins of nation building
How
the anthropologists in India contributed to nation building? Virtually, no discussion
is found on the role of anthropologists in the writings and commentaries of the
scholars on the rise and development of nationalism and nationalist thought in
India. Even one of the doyens and visionary of Indian anthropology, Nirmal Kumar
Bose, who held important governmental and university positions in post-independent
India and was a personal secretary to M. K. Gandhi did not discuss anything on
the contributions and role of anthropologists on nation building in independent
India in his two important books entitled Problems of National
Integration (1967) and Problems of Indian Nationalism (1969).
Another doyen of Indian sociology and social anthropology M. N. Srinivas in his
essay ‘Nation Building in Independent India’ first published in 1976 expressed
his scepticism regarding the contributions of social scientists in
understanding the ‘significance as well as complexity of political and social
stability for a vast and developing country such as India’ (Srinivas, 2009: 390).
Srinivas, however in his article entitled ‘The Development of Sociology and
Social Anthropology’ jointly written with M. N. Panini first published in Sociological Bulletin in 1973 observed
‘a sharp increase in the popularity of the two disciplines’ in the post independence
period and they also noted an effect of the creation of the national Planning
Commission on the development of the social sciences (Srinivas & Panini,
1973: 197). But in the same article we do not find any instance of the anthropological
works done on the problems of the resettlement of refugees, famine of Bengal
and displacement caused by industries and dams, which posed great challenges to
nation building in its early period. In Vidyarthi’s two volume magnum opus Rise
of Anthropology in India (1978), we also do not find any particular
reference on this topic. It is important to note that the contributions of the
anthropologists towards nation building in the post-independence period of
India were hardly considered to be important by the planners and policy makers
partly because of the nature of the discipline and in part owing to the
avoidance of the anthropologists in situating their micro-level studies in the
wider macro context of the nation.
Therefore,
the detailed empirical studies on particular tribes, castes and villages made
little sense to the planners of mega 5-year plans of the country. Even when the
value of anthropological methodology of conducting in-depth field-based
studies
were understood, it was practically not feasible for the government to engage
sufficient number of trained anthropologists to make plans for displaced persons
affected by famine, partition, industrialization or dam building in the country
by properly assessing the micro-level social impacts of these mega events occurring
in post-colonial India. As a consequence, the Indian anthropologists remained
on the margins of nation building, pursuing their micro-level studies sometime
almost in the fashion of their colonial masters either from the Anthropological
Survey of India or from various university departments.
Anthropological
discourses on nation building
For
the purpose of this study towards the exploration of anthropological discourses
around resettlement and rehabilitation of famine affected destitute, refugees
of partition and development project affected populations, I have selected five
pioneering studies conducted by eminent anthropologists who made important
contributions in this field. All the studies were done by the Indian anthropologists
and except the study on Bengal famine by Das the rest of the studies were
conducted within the span of the first 4–5-year plans of India during
1951–1974. I enumerate the studies below in their chronological order.
1. Bengal
Famine (1943): As Revealed in a Survey of the Destitutes of Calcutta (1949)
by Tarak Chandra Das. The University of Calcutta.
2. Resettlement
of East Pakistan Refugees in Andaman Islands: Report on Survey of Further
Possibilities of Resettlement (1955) by Surajit Chandra Sinha.
Government of West Bengal.
3. Studies
in Social Tensions Among the Refugees from Eastern Pakistan (1959)
by B. S. Guha. Department of Anthropology. Government of India.
4. Social
Processes in the Industrialization of Rourkela (With Reference to Displacement and
Rehabilitation of Tribal and Other Backward People) (1961)
by B. K. Roy Burman. Office of the Registrar General, India.
5. A Survey of the People Displaced Through the
Koyna Dam (1969),
by Irawati Karve and Jai Nimbkar. Deccan College: Poona.
Features of the anthropological studies
on nation building
The
first common feature of these
anthropological studies was that except the study done by Das on Bengal Famine,
all of them were commissioned and sponsored either by the central or the state
government of independent India to engage anthropologists on matters related to
displacement and resettlement. Das’s study was funded partly in its later stage
by the University of Calcutta.
The
second common feature of these
studies was that they were not specifically directed to any particular ethnic
minority or community, as had been done by the anthropologists by following the
colonial tradition, but to the populations affected by partition and
development processes.
The
third common denominator of these
studies was their solid empirical database. In all these studies, the main
objective of the authors were to collect, organize and analyze quantitative and
qualitative data on the problem which they wanted to investigate.
Fourth,
the analyses of the data were also done not to test or generate any theory or
hypothesis as regards the human populations, societies and cultures involved in
the processes but to collect concrete factual materials on the ground realities
of displacement of human populations in the newly independent nation.
Fifth,
in all the studies we find that the anthropologists innovatively employed their
traditional methods (participant observation, genealogy, case study, etc.) to
large populations.
Sixth and finally,
all the studies were done not for seeking pure knowledge but to generate
policies around the major challenges encountered by the planners of the newly
independent country in the post-colonial period.
In
a nutshell, these studies can be viewed as sincere attempts by the Indian
anthropologists towards the making of a new nation and that still remains
outside the mainstream debates and discussion around nation building by the
social scientists and even by the anthropologists themselves.
I
will now describe the studies.
Bengal Famine and the Rehabilitation of
the Destitute
T.C.
Das (1898–1964) was one of the founder teachers of the oldest
Anthropology department of India at Calcutta University and he was famous for
his ethnographic fieldwork. He conducted fieldworks to assess the impact of industrialization
in Birlapur in West Bengal, and wrote thought provoking articles containing
anthropological and sociological analyses on Bengal dowry restriction bill of
1940 and Hindu code bill in the years 1940 and 1944 along with articles on the
practical suggestions for the improvement of museums in India (Ray, 1974: 56–60).
Das’s
book on the famine of Bengal, which took place in 1943 was a unique and rare
first-hand study done by any anthropologist or social scientist on the victims of
one of the greatest tragedies of our country under the colonial rule. An
earlier version of the book was discussed in the then British Parliament and
some of the recommendations advanced by Das were adopted by the Famine Inquiry Commission
in 1944 formed by the colonial government for the prevention of future famines
in India (Das, 1949: iii–iv). Nehru in his book The Discovery of
India also mentioned about the anthropological survey conducted by Das on
the famine affected population of Bengal and expressed his confidence on the
results of the survey in contrast to the one carried out by the government
(Nehru, 1946:495–496). Ironically enough, the Nobel Laureate economist
Sen though gave reference to Das’s original work several times in his famous
book Poverty and Famines, but he did not mention the explanatory
and policy dimensions of this brilliant work (Sen, 1999). The subtitle of the
book Bengal Famine is phrased in the following words: ‘As revealed in a
Survey of the Destitutes in Calcutta’.
The book was the result of a survey undertaken by a team of
anthropologists during 1943–1944 in Calcutta city and also in the
villages of the ten districts of undivided Bengal.
The
idea of conducting a survey with a team of trained anthropologists was first conceived
by Das in July–August of 1943 when hundreds of hungry destitute entered
the city of Calcutta in search of food. Das proposed about the survey to his
colleagues and prepared a detailed questionnaire and a team was formed with
eleven trained anthropologists, which included the teachers and research students
of the Department of Anthropology of the Calcutta University. The data, collected
were analyzed and a preliminary report was written, and a major part of the
report was submitted to the Famine Inquiry Commission in 1944 in the form of a
memorandum. The report was later written in the form of a book by Das in July 1948
and was published in 1949 by the Calcutta University. This anthropological survey
was conducted with full methodological rigour and the team had no national or
international funding agency behind them; no political agenda was lying before
them. The Calcutta University sanctioned a sum of `500 only to extend the survey
in the rural areas of the ten districts of erstwhile undivided Bengal. In fact,
the two chapters on methodology, which are the best portions of the book,
reveal its strength. The chapter XI of the book entitled ‘Causes of the Famine
of 1943’ is another treasure-house of the book which places Bengal Famine
far above the category of a run-of-the-mill ‘sample survey’. Nehru in his
book The Discovery of India (1946) mentioned about the survey on Bengal Famine
before the publication of the book by Das and expressed his confidence on the
results of the survey in contrast to the one carried out by the government. In
the words of Nehru:
The
Department of Anthropology of the Calcutta University carried out an extensive scientific
survey of the sample groups in the famine areas. They arrived at the figure of
about 3,400,000 total deaths by famine in Bengal… Official figures of the
Bengal Government based largely on unreliable reports from village patwaris or
headmen gave a much lower figure (Nehru, 1946: 495–496).
The
ten chapters of Bengal Famine dealt elaborately with the demographic,
economic and socio–cultural aspects of one of the greatest calamities of
Bengal in the colonial period and one of the most important sections is the
final chapter of the book in which Das dealt with the rehabilitative and
preventive measures to tackle the famine. The section entitled ‘How to combat
famine’ is divided into two subsections, viz., (A) long range measures and (B)
immediate measures. Let us first discuss about the ‘immediate measures’
suggested by Das. Within a short space, Das was able to outline the short-term
strategies for bringing relief to the famine affected population which
according to him should first involve rapid surveys to identify the specific
needs of the people according to region, occupation and the nature of
devastation caused by the famine. In order to illustrate his ideas, he dealt
with the petty cultivators, fishermen and the potters since the first
represented the largest group in the economic life of Bengal, the second was
the largest rural industry and the third was the most important artisan group
in rural Bengal (Das, 1949, p. 127).
Under
the long range measures, Das’ recommendations followed his analysis of causes
of the famine. He strongly recommended that in order to avoid future food shortages,
heavy pressure on land in Bengal must be relieved and this could be done by
adopting two interrelated approaches, viz., (a) improvement of agriculture and
(b) development of industries. For Das, improvement in agriculture did not mean
a mere increase in food production with better technology but to change the relations
of production through co-operative farming. The co-operative farming according
to Das should have been linked up with the village industries which were to be
built up for creating employment for the rural population. In the final section
of Bengal Famine, he worked out a plan in detail about the formation of such
co-operatives and their tasks. I quote from the original:
The
innumerable fragments of cultivable land possessed by the inhabitants of a
village or of any other similar territorial unit are to be pooled together into
one gigantic farm.…
All
the villagers are to be members of this co-operative organization. The capital
of the organization is to be divided into a number of shares. The owners of the
plots of land will get shares of the organization according to the market value
of the plots of land taken from them. The remaining part of the capital is to
be realized from the inhabitants of the village by selling the shares. The
maximum number of shares which an individual will be entitled to purchase is to
be fixed according to the principle of co-operative organizations. The
co-operative organization will take up the management of the farm and factory.
As a general rule the shareholders are to be employed in all the different types
of work of the farm and of the factory, as far as possible (Das, 1949: 124–125).
The
improvement of agriculture in Bengal through the formation of co-operatives seemed
to be the best solution for Das in the context of small, scattered and
fragmented landholdings. But, at the same time he was also aware of the fact
that pooling together of the small sized farms into a large one would lead to
the unemployment of quite a good number of persons engaged in agriculture. To
tackle with this problem, Das suggested that agriculture-based industries
should be established to absorb the labour force no more required for
agriculture. In the words of Das:
Rice
husking and hessian making may be profitably started in rice and jute producing
centres respectively, for employment of labour not required for farming. Fruit
canning may be organised where fruit gardens are planted. Cheroots may be made
where tobacco is cultivated. Silk and lac may also be utilised in the same
manner in the area where they are produced. In this way there should be
co-ordination and co-operation between the farm and the factory—one is to
utilise the products of the other as far as possible (ibid., 1949: 125).
It
was obvious that the implementation of this kind of programme leading to radical
changes in policy on the part of the government could not be done simply by the
good intentions and neatly chalked out plans alone. The programme also needed a
thorough knowledge about the villages and this according to Das could only be
acquired through ‘village studies’. In the concluding part of the section entitled
‘How to Combat Famine’ Das lamented by saying:
To
implement this policy an intimate knowledge of the villages and villagers is
absolutely necessary. For this purpose, a socio–economic survey should
be organized with a band of scientifically trained men. We have got
archaeological survey, zoological survey, geological survey, botanical survey
but no survey to understand man and his social, economic and psychological
needs. This is an anomalous position.… The result is that whenever the
Government is confronted with a national catastrophe like the present famine it
has no knowledge to guide its activities—no trained men to depend upon (ibid.,
1949: 129–130).
One
should note here that when Das wrote this book the Anthropological Survey of
India was already founded but Das did not mention this fact in his book.
Bengal
Famine, however, was an unique example of team
work under the leadership of Das by a dedicated group of university based
anthropologists who were driven more by a kind of social and moral commitment
towards nation and its people than by pure academic quest (Guha, 2019, pp. 154-168).
Rehabilitation of
Refugees in Andaman
Under
the above general background, I will first take up the study undertaken by Sinha,
(1929–2002) who was then just passed out as an M.Sc. student in
anthropology from the University of Calcutta. Sinha later became one of the
famous
anthropologists
in post-independent India who was also the Director of the Anthropological
Survey of India and was well-known for his contribution in the study of tribal
and caste societies of India in the context of the greater Indian civilisation.
Sinha’s
painstaking and intensive study on the resettlement of Bengali refugee
population in Andaman just after the partition of the country still remains an
unnoticed work in the history of Indian anthropology. This study can be viewed as
one of the pioneering anthropological works on nation building since it dealt scientifically
with the burning problem of refugee resettlement which was plaguing the
planners and administrators of the new nation. Sinha was appointed by the Refugee
Rehabilitation Department of the Government of West Bengal in 1951 as an
anthropologist. His task was to visit the Andaman Islands and report to the
state and central governments on the possibilities of further resettlement of
families displaced from the then East Pakistan by studying the local situation
as regardsthe relationship between the refugees and the host populations of
Andaman Islands. In the very beginning of the report, Sinha categorically
stated his overall objective in the following manner.
A
student of Cultural Anthropology has a distinctive point of view in approaching
socio–economic problems. Any social situation is assessed by him in
terms of how far it satisfies the total range of human needs in the communities
under observation. His attention is not restricted to economic plans only; the
problems of social relationship and other cultural factors are given
simultaneous consideration. So the problem of relationship between the refugees
and original inhabitants was not studied as an isolated item. (Sinha, 1955, p.
1)
After
outlining his anthropological position, Sinha stated the specific objectives of
the study in concrete terms, which were as follows.
1.
Intensive socio-economic survey of the resettled refugees.
2.
Comparison of the degree of adaptation of the refugees and the earlier settlers.
3.
Socio-economic inter-relation between refugees and earlier settlers.
4.
Identification of suitable geographical areas in the Andaman Islands for further
rehabilitation of refugees.
Most
interestingly, Sinha’s intensive socio-economic survey not only included
collection of quantitative data, but also the participatory observation of the
wholeround of daily activities of the resettled refugees. He even took part in
their ‘gossips to note the psychological trends, on which direct questionnaire method
or statistical enquiry did not seem profitable’ (ibid.). The socio-economic
survey conducted by Sinha is one of the finest examples of an anthropological
study on resettlement and rehabilitation in India. It contained detailed
factual description of the historical background, geographical environment,
socio-demographic features, settlement pattern, economic and social life of the
resettled refugee population in Andaman.
The
description vividly revealed the ground realities of resettlement around the
differential adaptation of the refugee groups and Sinha was not hesitant to
record the failures of the government in providing land for the resettlers.
With the help of
quantitative
data presented in the form of a table Sinha stated:
The
chart amply shows that not only the promised quota of land has not been
fulfilled in most cases, but there also exists a large amount of disparity in
distribution of land among the different settlers. This has hindered the
attachment of the refugees to the local soil. They are still in the hope that
they may be given their full quota of land somewhere else. The refugees allege
that their lands have not been measured to their satisfaction (ibid., 1955: 14).
Along
with governmental failures, Sinha also noted the limitations of the refugees in
adapting to the new environment. On page 24 of the report, we find:
On
the whole the refugees are even today dissipating some amount of their energies
in grumbling and praying for more grants than adequately exploiting their
allotted quota of land. Though the cultivator families are doing fairly well in
tilling the plain lands, their record in clearing jungles for expanding the
cultivable land has been poor. They have moved very little in exploiting the
forest or sea (ibid., 1955: 24).
But,
immediately after the above statement Sinha gave some positive examples of traditional
higher caste (Brahmin and Kayastha) families amongst the refugees who started
ploughing and also some resettlers whom he found to work hard in clearing
jungles. Quite importantly, Sinha’s fieldwork was not limited amongst the
Bengali refugees. He gave adequate time to understand the complex situation of
adaptation of earlier settlers in Andaman, which included the descendents of Indian
convict parents, the Mapillas, the Bhantus, the Burmans, the Karens and
the
Madrasi refugees from Rangoon which was the capital of independent Myanmar. In
a section entitled ‘Local Adaptation of the East Pakistan Refugees compared
with the Earlier Settlers’ Sinha carefully depicted how the different groups
adapted to the Andaman situation under a variety of historical and socio–economic
factors and how these earlier settlers maintained a peaceful relationship with
the Bengali refugees who were last in the series of resettlers in the islands.
Finally, Sinha made a comprehensive assessment on the whole situation
of
refugee resettlement in Andaman and provided point-by-point practical
recommendations on the further possibilities of a more planned refugee
resettlement in different parts of Andaman with transparency and consultation
with the refugees themselves.
Social Tensions amongst
the Refugees in West Bengal
B.S.
Guha (1894–1961) was the founder of the Anthropological Survey of India
and was known to the students of Anthropology as a Physical Anthropologist who made
a classification of the Indian population on the basis of their Physical
features (Ray, 1956: 38–44). Very few people know that he first
undertook a thoroughgoing field survey on the Social tensions amongst the
refugees of the then east Pakistan for suggesting the government about how to
understand their problem and improve their living conditions (Guha, 1959). The
book by Guha titled Studies in Social Tensions among the Refugees from Eastern
Pakistan (1959) was based on intensive fieldwork done by an
interdisciplinary team of researchers. The book is basically a solid factual
report and analyses of socio-economic, cultural and psychological data
collected by a team of trained anthropologists and psychologists on the
refugees who came from the then East Pakistan to West Bengal under the overall
supervision of Guha. In his ‘General Introduction’ Guha first justified his
selection of two sample areas of refugee resettlement colonies which he finalized
in consultation with Gardener Murphy who was selected by the UNESCO as
Consultant to Government of India
in
the project to understand the underlying causes of social tension in India.
After this, Guha put the survey in the wider political scenario of the country
and mentioned in unequivocal terms the evil effects of the earlier ‘divide and
rule’ policy of the British Government as well as the sectarian approach of the
Muslim League Government of the Bengal, which paved the way towards
‘engineered’ communal riots that led to large scale displacement of the Hindus
from the then East Pakistan (Guha, 1959, p. viii). While searching the reasons
behind the evacuation
of
the Hindus Guha based his arguments not on any sociological theory, but on the
empirical findings of his multidisciplinary team of fieldworkers. Therefore, according
to him:
The
loss of prestige and social status which the Hindu community previously
enjoyed, and the realisation of the futility of regaining it now or in the near
future was a far more potent factor in creating the feeling of frustration than
the loss in the economic sphere (ibid., 1959).
In
the subsequent pages of the ‘Introduction’ Guha went on to analyze the data on the
‘areas of tension’ amongst the Hindu refugees which were collected by his research
team members through the use of social anthropological and psychological methods.
Guha here made an excellent sociological analysis by putting the arenas of
social tension in a hierarchical and dynamic order. For Guha, his data led him
show how the arenas of tension played their respective roles and how the affected
members of the community shifted their grievance and aggression from one area
of tension to another. Like a true social anthropologist, Guha also ventured into
the variation in the social tension at the level of age, sex and socio–political
situation. Another interesting explanation advanced by Guha was on changing
authority structure of the traditional Hindu joint family and the worsening of
the intra-family relationships amongst the refugees and here he made a comparative
interpretation of the two refugee settlements which were selected by him for
the study. In one place where people depended on the governmental aid and
assistance the traditional authority structure of the family was found to be stronger
than in the refugee colony where the uprooted people had to struggle harder to
get them resettled (ibid., 1959: xi–xii). By and large what was most interesting
to observe was Guha’s technique of explaining such a complex thing like social
tension. All through he, like a seasoned sociologist or social anthropologist attacked
the problem from a relational and dynamic angle without falling in the trap of
a static view of society (Guha, 2018: 1–12). While providing economic or
psychological explanations he also did not take recourse to either Freudian or
Marxian models. Finally, and what was really several steps ahead in his time
Guha recommended a participatory and nationalist model for the resettlement of
the refugees. For him, the social tension between the refugees and the government
mainly arose owing to the fact that they were treated as ‘outsiders’ from the
governmental side. According to Guha, the refugees should be given the responsibility
of managing their own resettlement camps so that they could regain their
self-respect. I will end by quoting the last line from the Guha’s ‘Introduction’
in the book on Social Tensions:
Once
their displaced energies are canalised into well-directed productive sources,
there is every reason to hope, that instead of a burden and a clog, the
refugees will turn out to be useful participants in the march of progress of
this country. (ibid., 1959: xiii).
Displacement and
Rehabilitation in Rourkela
B.
K. Roy Burman (1922–2012) studied Anthropology at the University of Calcutta
and like Surajit Sinha he was also trained by T. C. Das (Roy Burman, 1978: 107–116).
Later, he was advisor to many governmental committees for the welfare of the
scheduled tribes in India. In 1960, Roy Burman as Assistant Commissioner for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of India got interested in
undertaking an anthropological study on the problems of the tribal and other
populations who were displaced by the establishment of the huge public sector
steel factory at Rourkela in Orissa (now Odisha). On his suggestion the study
of the ‘Social Processes in the Industrialization of Rourkela’ was taken up as
a project for being investigated by the Census Organization. The study was
carried out by a team under the leadership of Roy Burman and the results were
published by him under the Monograph Series of the Census of India, 1961. It is
not only the first social impact assessment research on industrialization in
India, but one of the pioneering studies on development caused displacement and
resettlement at the global level (Cernea, 1995: 96).The gigantic plant at Rourkela
was the first public sector integrated steel plant with an annual installed
capacity to produce 1 million ton of steel. In the introduction of his
monograph, Roy Burman stated the purpose of the study emphatically:
The
setting up of the plant was a landmark in the strides of the nation towards
progress and prosperity. But it also meant displacement of a large number of
persons—mostly tribals, who inhabited the region before the plant was set up.
Many of the displaced persons could ultimately re-establish their homes; many
could even improve their lots, but at the same time many homes were disrupted;
many individuals found themselves hurled at the bottom of an abyss. It is this
human aspect of the growth of the giant enterprise at Rourkela that the present
study proposes to cover (Roy Burman, 1961, p. 1).
In
the rest of this exemplary monograph which is 163 pages, we find detailed description
of the ecological setting of the steel project and a thorough analysis of the demographic,
economic, social, political and religious aspects of about 15,200 displaced
population in thirty villages. Along with these, Roy Burman meticulously discussed
the extent of rehabilitation and the patterns of new life with new hopes and
frustrations that emerged out of this mega development project undertaken in
the early years of independence of the country. The book contains a plethora of
quantitative and qualitative data (121 tables) not only on the spatial and
economic consequences of forced displacement, but also on its demographic,
social, political, psychological and cultural aspects. For example, we find in
the book a number of tables on the views and attitudes of the rehabilitated
persons on their job satisfaction (tables 109–111), as well as their frequency
of spending time with job mates beyond office hours (tables 114–116). One
of the most valuable aspects of this study is Roy Burman’s incisive
sociological analysis of the social and political processes before and after
displacement and that has raised the research far beyond a run-of-the-mill
technical social impact assessment report. With massive data and a humanistic
approach towards mega industrialisation, Roy Burman through his penetrating
sociological analysis discovered the strength of the moral order of the society
at the village level, which ultimately resulted in a greater bargaining power
to the displaced families in terms of higher compensation rates, land-for-land
and employment in the industry (ibid., 1961: 159–163).
Displacement Caused by
a Dam in Maharashtra
Irawati
Karve (1905–1970) was one of the pioneering anthropologists in India who taught
Anthropology at Deccan College and founded the department of Anthropology at the
University of Pune (Ray, 1974: 162–174). Karve contributed profusely to
both Physical and Social Anthropology. Her lesser known book with Nimbkar
entitled A Survey of the People Displaced Through the Koyna Dam (1969)
was the first of its kind on displacement caused by a big dam in India.
Nandini
Sundar perceptively observed that this research is a model for studies on dam
displaced people which received fresh attention in the 1980s and 1990s (Sundar,
2010: 405). The study was undertaken by Karve on behalf of the Research
Committee of the Planning Commission of India and was published by Deccan
College, Poona. The Koyna dam was the first big project in Maharashtra in which
100 villages were affected involving 30,000 people. A total of 30,000 acres of
land under cultivation was submerged and another 32,000 land was acquired,
which could no longer be cultivated. But this dam was also the first big project
in which the government assumed the responsibility of offering substitute land
and housing plots to the displaced families apart from the payment of monetary compensation.
Under this background, Karve and Nimbkar made a detailed micro-level
anthropological investigation to assess the success and failure of governmental
rehabilitation and the nature of adaptation of the displaced population.
This
impact assessment research showed how anthropological methodology of studying
small populations could also be fruitfully applied to study displacement of
population caused by a big dam over a wide area. Another significant thing
about the study was the fact that Karve and Nimbkar had no intention to
please
the government by writing a success story; they have not also said anywhere in
the report that the dam was unnecessary. The results and the conclusions of the
study simply revealed how the government despite its stated good intentions for
development failed to deliver justice. In the Foreword, the authors stated unequivocally:
More
dams have been built since independence than during the two hundred years of
the British rule…. With independence this major activity became entirely a
state sponsored enterprise. The state also realized that paying adequate money
compensation did not end the responsibility of the State and that people so
displaced must be rehabilitated by the state.
The
following report will show that the State understood its responsibility and
tried honestly to fulfill it but still the attempt was largely fruitless
because the rehabilitation was not properly planned (Karve & Nimbkar, 1969:
1).
The
book contains eight sections and three appendices which included the findings as
well as detailed description of the methodology along with the questionnaire schedules.
Under the section on findings, the authors analyzed a huge mass of quantitative
and qualitative data on landlessness, caste composition, occupational changes,
education, housing, compensation and the impact of displacement on the social
and religious life of the affected population. In the concluding section, the
authors succinctly observed how the sufferings of the displaced population caused
by the mega development project aggravated owing to lack of planning and
foresight. I quote from the monograph:
The
chief failure of rehabilitation lies in the lack of planning…. What actually
happened is that people did have to move in a hurry, and the government puts
the blame for this on the indecision of the people themselves … the valley
people did not have a clear idea of what was going to happen … they handed
large cash amounts to people who had never before handled money, and left them
to their own devices. The result was that much of this money was spent in
transportation expenses, instead of being utilized in constructing houses
(ibid., 1969: 106).
Interestingly,
the authors finally narrated the short-sighted approach of the government, which
was revealed when the government gave a cash dole of few 100 rupees to the
displaced persons just before the general election of the country apprehending that
the dissatisfaction of the affected people might have been dissipated towards
the government. Suffice it to say that Karve and Nimbkar could not accept this
governmental approach to the resettled families (ibid: 108).
Conclusion
In
the social sciences, the mainstream discourse on nation building in India in
its early phase excluded the contributions of the anthropologists, although
there were solid empirical studies done by the latter which have had remarkable
relevance in the making of the new nation. Eminent anthropologists with their
characteristic methodology of participatory fieldwork and ethnography
painstakingly conducted valuable researches on the three major challenges
confronted by independent India in its early years. The challenges were famine, resettlement of partition affected refugees and industrialization and dam building. My
exploration through the literature yielded at least five pioneering studies
done by anthropologists during 1949–1969, which sincerely attempted to
meet the aforementioned challenges of nation building by successfully utilizing
the micro-level tools of anthropology to tackle the macro-level problems.
References
Bose, N.K. (1967).Problems of National
Integration, Shimla: Indian Institute of
Advanced Study.
Bose, N.K. (1969). Problems of Indian
Nationalism, Bombay: Allied Publishers.
Guha,
A. (2018). Social Anthropology of B.S. Guha: An Exploration. Indian Anthropologist .48 (1):1-12.
Guha,
A. (2019). Colonial, Hindu and Nationalist Anthropology in India. Sociological Bulletin. 68(2):154–168.
Nehru,
J. (1946). The Discovery of India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ray,
S.K. (1974). Bibliographies of Eminent Indian Anthropologists (with Life
Sketches) Anthropological Survey of India, Government of India, Indian Museum,
Calcutta.
Sen,
A. (1999). Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Srinivas,
M.N., (2009). ‘On Living in a Revolution’, in The Oxford India Srinivas,
first published in 1986, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.373-87.
Srinivas,
M.N. & M.N. Panini. (1973). The Development of Sociology and Social
Anthropology in India. Sociological Bulletin.22 (2): 179-215.
Sundar,
N. (2010). ‘In the Cause of Anthropology: Life and Works of Irawati Karve’, in
P. Uberoi, N. Sundar, & S. Deshpande (eds.), Anthropology in the
East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology, Ranikhet: Permanent
Black, 2010, pp. 360-416.
Vidyarthi,
L.P. (1978). Rise of Anthropology in India: A Social Science Orientation,
vols. I & II. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1978.
Acknowledgement
I
owe my debts to Dr.Suman Nath for continuously energizing me to write for Anthrobud. It was his inspiration which
led me to write this article. The shortcomings of the article, which still remains
lie with me.
Comments
Post a Comment