protecting the ethnosphere

The dilemma of what to do about 'uncontacted tribes' or, for that matter, indigenous peoples the world over has been a theme in some of my earlier blog posts. The real issue is the shattering of their worldviews and culture that 'development' almost inevitably brings. I ended my last post on the subject by saying that:

Perhaps, I should just stay well away and avoid even thinking about polluting them with my own confusion!

But this would suggest that there isn't even a role to play in helping them to exist... Though I still have no idea what to do, this wonderful video from the TED talks by Wade Davis (from National Geographic), warmed my heart and, despite the tragic undertones, left me with a small ray of hope:



The idea of there being an ethnosphere that is undervalued (I am trying to imagine, somewhat unsuccessfully, an ethnological economics, like environmental economics, that may offer us ways of protecting it) and, it would seem, whose destruction is considered to be an indication of development itself is really disturbing.

As Wade Davis says in this passage based on his time with aboriginees in northern australia:

...in life there is only the Dreaming, in which every thought, every plant and animal, are inextricably linked as a single impulse, the inspiration of the first dawning.

This seems like the deepest recognition of everything being one that is conceivable: a life based on it rather than a life spent trying to grasp it. And how different a world this would produce.

So what do we do now?

The Perplexing Conundrum of 'Uncontacted Tribes' and Development

I recently came across a post via the Neuroanthropology blog over at the Culture Matters blog. This post mainly focuses on criticising the nonsense and stupidity that surrounds the way that the 'outside world' (i.e. us) relates to what end up getting called 'Uncontacted Tribes' (even though this is a myth). And I really appreciate the efforts that these anthropologists appear to be making to put things in their right perspective...

But then, as I lay in bed last night after reading the post, I found myself wondering... How on earth does whatever I am doing and what I want to do relate to all this? And how does that make me feel and do I still feel ok about myself? Or better, what ought I do about it? Wondering what the issue is?

I work in a field that is basically called 'development'. It is a hugely contested field, replete with its hardcore proponents, its alternative champions and its dissidents. Its primary (official) concern is with trying to make the world a better place. Now we all know (don't we?) that a lot of what gets done in the name of development is horrible and damaging - to the environment, to culture and generally to life on this planet. But like I said, development is a huge field and contains lots of alternative conceptions of what positive change really is. I like to think that I am working on one of the more (though by no means the most) alternative and benign types of development.

The organisation where I work has the basic objective of strengthening rural, predominantly tribal communities so that they can become self-governing entities. In the modern age, this means that the communities have to have the power to negotiate with the State (I hate giving it a capital 'S' but it seems necessary in a world where there is no escape from it). These tribals are entangled in the modern world through roads, motorcycles, party-politics, trade, employment, education, mobile phones, radios and so on. So they're nothing like the 'uncontacted tribes' from the Amazon.

They also have a life of increasing hardship. Being a part of the State means being a part of the political, economic and social structure that it entails. Sustainable 'hunter-gathering' has pretty much died out (and the forests that once supported it have by and large been destroyed). Indigenous medicines have either vanished or are vanishing. Population has mushroomed as people have shifted increasingly to settled agriculture. There is a scarcity of food available and child malnutrition - in terms of calories and micro-nutrients - is just ridiculously high. A host of other health problems prevail. At one level, this sorry state of affairs can be linked directly to what would once have been called development. And before it was called development it was probably called something along the lines of 'civilising the savages'. It disgusts me to think about it like that.

What am I trying to get at? First a little bit more beating around the bush. I am about to enroll on a degree - its a Masters in Participation, Power and Social Change. Sound exciting? Well, I think it is. Why do I want to take it? Besides my earlier post which explains the superficial reasons for going to study, this degree will hopefully give the time and space to explore - even more systematically that I already have done - just how society is held together and how people can be brought together in a process that enables them to live the life that they 'really' want rather than one that is sort of imposed on them from outside. What's my point?

The basic conundrum is this: where do these 'uncontacted tribals' fit into my schema of inclusive social change? Now before I get labeled as some kind of destroyer of indigenous culture and human diversity, I would like to make it very clear that I am fascinated by these tribes, the way they live, their belief systems, their healing systems, their socio-political structures. I don't feel that they need to be 'civilised' and I am perfectly happy with them living just the way they do. So, if I feel that way about it, why am I happy to go off and study on a course that is all about interfering with people, getting people connected up and engaged and making them capable of incfluencing the world in a way that is meaningful for them.

These 'uncontacted tribals' are not animals. So why are we keeping them in some kind of giant nature reserve and tracking them (a bit like we do with endangered species). Perhaps this is our way of preventing the destructive force of Development from completely obliterating them. In that case, perhaps we should keep on protecting them until we (the 'outside world') become sufficiently benign so as not to present a threat to them (is this even possible anymore? will we eradicate the common cold?). Or else does this preservation thing go on indefinitely until the collapse of modern civilisation (which seems like an increasingly likely possibility, as Dave Pollard is keen to profess in his wonderful blog - How to Save the World).

And what does all this mean for me and what I do? On the one hand, my new job description ought to be something along the lines of: 'salvaging Development's cultural wreckage'. My work is to try and help people whose lives are falling apart as a result of Development to organise themselves and recreate meaningful and sustainable community as a way of life so that they can be free from hunger, exploitation and the misery and hardship that this entails.

But the next step after salvaging is to enable people to no longer be the passive victims of the Development-Monster-On-A-Rampage but be empowered agents of their own destiny, creators of their own culture, cultivators and communicators of their own values, evolving collectively in some kind of sustainable wonder-land where people live in a perpetual state of harmony, ecstatic joy, meaning and fulfillment.

Not realistic? OK. But really, I find myself wondering what I will be able to learn from my degree in participation, power and social change about how I should relate to these 'Uncontacted Tribals'. Perhaps, I should just stay well away and avoid even thinking about polluting them with my own confusion!

What do you think about all this?

acculturising with the choklas

Some time ago, last month, I was asked by Swati from Seva Mandir, to help out with some planning for a workshop with a group of representatives from several tribal (Bhil) jati panchayats (also known as choklas) from Gogunda, through Chali, all the way up to Godhaghati (stretching out north of Udaipur)... these people are the traditional leaders of their communities and have the responsibility for overseeing all manner of decisions related to social functions - marriages, deaths, births, customs, norms and various other kinds of family, tribe and other disputes and matters. the basic idea behind the workshop, as I understood it, was that there was a prevailing sense that these groups had some stake in various unfair practices against women - and that this needed to be explored so that changes could be made to help improve the position of women.

The workshop preparation a real last minute kind of a thing and although I was quite enthusiastic, I realised that I really didn't know a great deal about who these people were... So I talked to Swati and tried to get a sense of the purpose: is the focus on trying to get the jati panchayat people to change their practices or is it do find out what is happening and what they think about it (i.e. knowing where they stand)? Obviously, as usual, the answer was that both of these points were important. I brainstormed some workshop plans, doodled up a little, shared them with Swati and some other staff, modified it all and got ready to get rolling. The basic idea was that we would divide into manageable groups and focus on a series of issues:
re-marriages or nata pratha;bride price or dapa pratha (like dowry but the woman's family receives the money); women's exclusion from the jajam (the community's carpet upon which official decisions are taken); various customs in which women have to bear a heavy financial burden;Real stories would be invited from the various jati panchayat leaders related to each of the issues. Sitting in a circle, these would then be with a particular focus on how they impacted women and children, what the role of the Jati Panchayat was in this process and what could be done about it.

I don't want to get right into the depths of all the impacts and stories but, instead, I would like to share some of the most striking features of my discussion that day with the jati panchayat people:

• The Jati Panchayat representatives consider themselves as people who are are responsible for doing seva (service) in their communities - which is not the way that they usually get presented in the 'development' discourse. Their notion of seva seems worthy of further exploration and investigation - no doubt that it would yield something rich.

• Trying to get people to tell stories in which they make themselves complicit came across as being a rather counterproductive or non-sensical strategy.Following a discussion process based on this created less of an opportunity for building trust, mutual understanding and a better sense of how we could work together than deciding to let the discussion flow in a more open way and probing areas that were of personal interest to me and gave the Jati Panchayat people a chance to talk about their own concerns and how they feel, etc.

• The Jati Panchayat people, essentially, feel that much of the change ('development') that is taking place is leading to a breakdown in their social structure, their community values and their hold on the community. This has a direct effect on their sense of identity and, my sense, is that it leaves them feeling threatened, defensive and marginalised. Not surprising then that they appear resistant to change! Any change to their culture simply seems like a threat to their identity. Given the overwhelmingly negative nature of change (from their perspective), it is not surprising that they demonstrate reactions around the idea of changing women's roles in their communities... Starting with their own concerns about what is going on (though not being such an obvious way of addressing our agenda) might end up being an even more effective means of getting to the same, ultimate outcomes.

• Some points raised by some participants in the context of education really bring home their concerns. The leaders were blaming a lack of shiksha (education) on the high rates of young men who run off (apparently quite frivolously) with second wives leaving the first one (often with a child) in a bit of a mess. I questioned this, wondering how the increase in school coverage could correlate with a lack of shiksha. The answer was thus: (1) not all shiksha in the school - both family and community are important places where shiksha happens; and (2) the shiksha provided in the schools encourages selfishness rather than a sense of community or collective responsibility. Wow! And to think that we tried to argue that these people don't know what quality education means!?!? It seems to me that we never really tried to understand their point of view. If we had, we might have made much faster progress over the last 40 years.

Ultimately, the experience left me with a feeling that these JPP could (or should) be one of Seva Mandir's most valuable partners if we could only learn to understand them and work with them! It also left me feeling that I would really like to get a proper chance to engage with them in more depth in the future.