1 Genesis of Tribal Problems

The basic features of our constitution indicate direction of change or modernization, if

one wants to say, of our society. Ours is a casteless, secular, democratic and socialist
polity and society. One may question this type of direction itself, but that could be a
separate issue for discussion. So far as this paper is concerned, this type of direction
provides point of departure for discussion on how we have formulated tribal problem.
The point that follows from this is that we have shaped or we are supposed to
have shaped our policies and programmes to realize this type of change. We judge failure
or success of our policies and programmes from this point of view. But what is more
important here is that our constitution considers – at least formally – every citizen as
equal. Legal and administrative framework, institutional network and policies of
development in general are also considered suitable for tribals. Of course, tribals are part
of the Indian society and general problems of consciously changing or modernizing
Indian society are also applicable to them. But they form a special case in this wider
framework and the problem is the nature and type of this special category. Perhaps there
is no unanimity among sociologists and anthropologists on this point. So the “problem
that has been exercising in the minds of thinking persons in India, especially after the
attainment of independence, is what should be the place of tribal peoples in the
framework of the Indian nation and how they should be developed and brought to a level
with the rest of the people – socially, economically, culturally and politically” (Datta-
Majumdar, 1995:25). There were several debates on this issue at the dawn of
independence. Three different approaches – of isolation, assimilation and integration –
were put forth. Late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru took initiative in accepting the approach of
integration (Nehru, 1955: 1-8) for tribal development policy. Thus, “the tribal policy,
apart from the constitutional provision, is the contribution of late Prime Minister Shri
Jawaharlal Nehru. He (also) advocated five principles, known as the tribal ‘panchshil’ ”
(Joshi, 1987:11). Our various policies and programmes of tribal development are
supported to have been based on this approach of integrating tribals with the mainstream
and bring them at par with rest of the people. Of course, someone may raise question
about this so-called ‘mainstream’, and that is a worth raising issue. However, it does not
concern us at this juncture.
Though it must be agreed that “the Indian experiment of tribal development has
been hailed as unique in the Third World perspective of the treatment of the indigenous
people, one has to take a balanced view of its processes” (Singh, 1982:1322). On one
side, the tribals have become full citizens. They have, by and large, maintained their
identity. They have not extinguished and maintained their demographic growth rate. If we
consider this as a part of the integration process, why again the question of genesis arose
after more than four decades of our experience? Our tribal development policies and
programmes assumed that all the tribals will develop and will ‘integrate’ themselves with
the so-called ‘mainstream’. This has happened only in a symbolic way. Most of our
researchers agree on this point that as a result of the planned tribal development,
stratification on secular lines has taken place among tribals and only a small section has
been able to take advantage of our tribal development programmes. This being so, the
question arises: where did we go wrong? For sometimes people believed that this is
because of inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy that the programmes were not
implemented well. We created special administrative set-up for tribal development and
we know that it has not shown better results. At some places tribals’ cooperatives of
different types were shaped. They worked well in the beginning. But their benefits did
not percolate to the lower strata of tribals. Experiments of tribal development through
voluntary efforts have proved successful only in certain cases and in certain pockets. On
the other hand, land alienation pushes the pauperized tribals out of their villages and
hordes of tribal seasonal migrants move from place to place in search of work. Generally,
dams have been constructed in tribal areas by involuntary acquisition of their land. The
tribals lose their land, habitat and milieu resulting into pauperization, causalization and
psychological stresses and strains. Official and illicit felling of forest trees have benefited
outsiders while tribals face loss of their environment. This would lead us to revisit our
basic assumptions about tribal problem. Is tribe a special category? If yes, of what type?
What is the nature of tribal-non-tribal relationship? Why they are backward? Is this tribal
backwardness a cultural backwardness?

‘Tribe’ and Its Indian Context

The word ‘tribe’ is generally used for a “socially cohesive unit, associated with a
territory. The members of which regard themselves as politically autonomous” (Mitchell,
1979:232). Often a tribe possesses a distinct dialect and distinct cultural traits. The term
‘primitive tribes’ was often used by western anthropologists to denote “a primary
aggregate of peoples living in a primitive or barbarous condition under a headman or
chief” (Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol.15). Various anthropologists define tribe as
a people at earlier stage of evaluation of society. This gave a sort of moral tone that the
tribals are yet to develop and become civilized. It is because of this that they were also
known as ‘primitive’, ‘barbarous’, or ‘aboriginal’ people. This sort of moralistic overtone
was later on reduced by using terms like ‘per-state society’, ‘pre-literate society’, ‘folk
society’ or ‘simple society’. All these terms with evolutionary approach indicated that the
tribals are backward in comparison to other advanced groups. In this direction, tribal
development means a transformation from pre-state to state society, from simple to
complex society and like.
An ideal type of tribe can be characterized as a society homogenous unit having
its own dialect, political and cultural institutions and territory which isolate it from the
outside influences. This sort of ideal type was constructed by early British
anthropologists of evolutionary school and it fitted well to some of the African,
American, and Australian tribes which they studied in those days. This type of
construction suited best to their cultural hegemony and colonial interests. In Indian
languages we do not have any synonym for the word tribe. This means that the tribal –
non-tribal categorization did not exist in pre-British era. With this background, when
British scholars started studying India, they wanted to call Indian society as a society of
various tribes. A Ph.D. thesis of Calcutta University was entitled as ‘Some Kashatriya
Tribes of Ancient India’ (Law, 1923). Looking to the cultural diversity of Indian sub-
continent and existence of certain highly ‘civilized’ groups according to their own
standards, the British scholars could not describe entire sub-continent as tribal. However,
they were not sure about identifying particular groups as ‘tribe’ or ‘caste’. Latham
describes certain groups in Punjab and Sindh as tribes. He describes Lepcha and Kirata as
Nepalese tribes. But while describing ethnology of Gujarat, he was not sure whether the
Memon, the Khoja, the Sidi, the Ahir, the Rabari and several such groups are tribes or
not. So he simply describes them (Latham, 1859: 262-271). Even Enthovan, in his
acclaimed work, Tribes and Castes of Bombay Presidency, does clearly distinguish
between caste and tribe.
Nationalists in India charged anthropologists for destroying national identity by
creating a category called ‘tribe’ for which there was no synonym in almost all Indian
languages. However, it should be noted that in India it was not the anthropologist but the
colonial officer who played the key role as an adviser, researcher and administrator in
tribal affairs. Ghurye writes: “In the Census Report of 1891, Baines arranged the castes
according to their traditional occupations. Under the category of agricultural and pastoral
castes, he formed a sub-heading and named it ‘forest tribes’. In next two censuses, those
of 1901 and 1911, Sir Herbert Rieley and Sir E.A. Gait included the so-called animists…
Dr. Hutton, at the 1931 census, followed Baines, but substituted the term ‘primitive
tribes’ for ‘forest tribes’” (Ghurye, 1943:7). It is necessary to remember here that it was
only Ghurye who did not accept the category of ‘tribe’ as propounded by the British. But
most of the Indian academic, under the influence of their British counterparts, accepted
the evolutionary definition of tribe (Vidyarthi and Rai, 1976: 167-174). However, when it
came to determining elements of tribes for the purpose of naming a group as tribe, there
was no unanimity. The degree and range of differences, especially with reference to their
relations with the non-tribals, show so much variation that it was extremely difficult,
almost impossible, to evolve one single ideal type of Indian tribals. There is so great
variations in their ways of life, past and present, that any attempt to classify them would
remain arbitrary in absence of its total understanding.
But one thing is certain that except a few groups all the ‘tribals’ had relations with
‘non-tribals’. What is necessary is to define the nature and type of that relationship. We
will deal with this issue in the latter part of this paper.
In the absence of a suitable definition of tribals, we have resorted to arbitrary
selection of certain social groups living in forests and hills and we have belied them as
‘scheduled tribes’ for the purpose of some special programmes to be given to them as
prescribed by the constitution. The story of how various social groups were included in
the schedule is well known and needs no repetition. It was exigency and it was also
necessary to immediately select certain groups for providing special programmes. But it
was not necessary for our scholars and administrators to forcibly fit the characteristics,
described by western anthropologists, to the ‘scheduled tribes’ of India.
This being so, social scientists have, today, moved away from British
anthropologists’ notion of a tribe as an isolate, homogenous, autonomous unit. Now they
view tribals in relations to non-tribals (Dube, 1977). This sort of change in perspective
changes our entire view towards tribal problem.
India is a very complex society. It is not the best example of plural society,
because while pluralism stresses cleavages and discontinuities between the sections of
people differentiated by race, ethnicity, religion or culture, there has been an all-
pervasive sense of cultural unity, interactions and interdependence and sharing of certain
common symbols in spite of multifold diversities. Tribals were not alien, their isolation
was only partial and relative, and throughout the history they were part of Indian
civilizational universe. They were part of this wider civilization, at the same time they
were different. They were not part of caste hierarchy in general. They were also not part
of ‘Sanatan Dharma’.

Nature of the Tribal Problem

Tribal problem has a reference to non-tribals. Comparatively, they are considered
backward in almost all walks of life. Now, the question is, what is the nature of this
backwardness? ‘Backwardness’ and ‘tribal backwardness’ have been defined in various
ways depending upon the approach that one takes. All the definitions of backwardness
are based on arbitrary points of backwardness and development. However, we should
take note of some approaches.
The Classical anthropological approach defines backwardness in terms of culture.
From the evolution of culture point of view, there is obvious distinction between
‘primitive’ and ‘civilized’, between ‘simple’ and ‘complex’ societies, between ‘scattered’
and ‘dense’ population and above all between ‘pre-state (autonomous) society and
societies that have developed state.
This kind of evolutionary approach also delineates various stages of economic
development on which different civilizations can be placed.
Tribal backwardness is termed as ‘primitive’ in this parlance, because they are
considered to be on lower stage of development. It is also believed that if tribals are put
in contact with advanced culture, they will learn and develop. People from ‘civilized
world’ become a sort of change agent when they come into contact with tribals.
Taking tribals as isolated from the mainstream of Indian culture several people
have opined that this isolation should break and cultural contacts with the non-tribals will
help them in overcoming their backwardness. Several anthropologists in India have tried
to prepare scale of development and placed various tribal communities somewhere on
this scale after measurement. All tribal development programmes have a basic
assumption that the development administration will help tribals. Not only that but some
of the officers believe that they are there to develop tribals. This has happened only
partially. On the other hand, the non-tribal intervention has created certain problems like
pauperization, land alienation and seasonal
migration.
Indian social scientists have found the genesis of backwardness in social
situations. The world ‘social’ has been identified with caste and hence ‘defective caste
structure’ is considered to be the genesis of backwardness. Following paragraphs lucidly
describe the genesis of backwardness in terms of caste:
“It has been noted already that the problem of backwardness has arisen on
account of the defective Hindu social order. Even Islam and Christianity could not
escape the all-pervasive influence of castes.”
“Many representatives who met us, and especially those of younger generation,
attributed the present plight of a large number of the backward classes to
economic backwardness and suggested with a facile logic that the only way to
remove social evils was to improve the economic conditions of the depressed and
backward classes. The economic backwardness of a large majority is certainly
alarming, and in itself constitutes a colossal problem. But we must recognize that
in India economic backwardness is often the result and not the cause of social
 evils. Our society was not built on an economic structure, but on the medieval
ideas of ‘varna’, caste and social hierarchy (Government of India, 1955:39).

The idea of attributing backwardness to caste system has relevance in terms of

tribal backwardness also. Because it was postulated that the tribes were ‘backward
Hindus’—a part of Hindu society and they were to be absorbed in the larger Hindu
system with the help of the process of sanskritization. However, the process of
development that started was a secular one of the linking tribal economy with national
economy-that started penetrating in tribal region. The very development process has
created stratification on secular lines within tribal community.

The British notion of tribal backwardness stems from their notion of cultural
backwardness. The British policy tried to separate tribals from the non-tribals. When
British entered tribal areas, there were encounters and uprisings. Hence, the
administration of such regions was separated from civil administration. This came to be
known as ‘non-regulation system’. It was believed that this system, with its “simple
methods of administration and avoidance of complicated rules and procedure, was
peculiarly suited to aboriginal race” (Sinha, 1970: 6). In 1874, the Scheduled Districts
Act was passed as a result of which civil and criminal justice, settlement operations and
revenue works were given to special officers in this area. The Government of India Act of
1935 provided for ‘excluded areas’ and ‘partially excluded areas’ outside the scope of the
legislature and under the authority of the Governor. Various such acts were passed to
tribal areas from rest of India. Of course, such a separation was arbitrary, because there
was no clear demarcation between the tribals and the non-tribals. Varrier Elwin’s
approach should be evaluated in this context, but unfortunately his British birth came in
the way of the better appreciation of his views. Some of his views on tribal problem still
have a relevance.
The British policy of isolation was opposed by the nationalists. They were very
clear that the tribals were part of Indian society (or Hindu society as some have put it).
The ground for this approach was prepared by Shri A.V. Thakkar, popularly known as
Thakkarbapa, and some workers of ‘Servants of India Society’ who did pioneering work
among the tribes. Many nationalist leaders supported tribal movements against the
British. Congress, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, opposed the segregation of
tribals from rest of India. It asked its workers to go to tribal areas, establish ashrams and
prepare them for the national struggle. Opposing British policy of isolation of tribals was
a part of its anti-British and nationalist ideology. Hence, it naturally considered
assimilation of tribals with the non-tribal India.
Until independence, the general trend among sociologists and anthropologists was
to study the social and cultural aspects of tribal life. The question of what to do with the
tribes did not bother them much. For them, it was clear that they were part of the Indian
society and they believed that the difference between the tribals and non-tribals would
gradually vanish and the tribals will merge in the mainstream. The only problem was to
speed up this process with as much ease as possible.
Tribal-Non-Tribal Relationship
Historically speaking tribals always had relations with the non-tribals. But the
formation of princely states by Rajputs in tribal regions led to a sort of relationship
between non-tribal kings and tribal subjects. Tribal situation in Gujarat has not been
studied from this point of view. This was a ‘winner-loser’ or ‘patronage-exploitation’
type of relationship. Apart from the mythological stories of tribal-non-tribal relations, the
recorded history narrates that during Moghul period the land was in abundance and Bhils
were living in forest leading as prosperous life as non-tribal rural folks used to live. It
was during this period that the Moghuls won over several kingdoms in Rajputana and
Rajput chiefs came to Gujarat. Some of them came to forest areas and won the Bhils in
fierce battles. The Bhils had to run away and settle in hills. The hill terrains were not that
fertile. The economic degeneration and relative isolation took place between the 12 th and
the 16th century. Kesrisinh of Gabbargah (near Ambaji) killed a Bhil chief and established
his rule in Taranga in 1269 AD. Ashkaran was a well-known king in his line who was
named as ‘Maharana’ by Moghul king Akbar. In Panchmahal Jalamsinh established
‘Jhalod’ village as his capital and subjugated Bhils of the surrounding area. One of his
descendants named Kumar went further interior and established ‘Sunth’ estate in 1255
AD (Parikh, 1979: 133-147). The states of Baria, Naswati Chhota Udepur, Rajpipla,
Vansda and Dharampura in tribal region have similar stories. In almost all cases the Bhil
chieftains lost and left the places to settle in interior forest.
These historical records prove that the Bhils (not ‘tribe’ in modern parlance) were
either subjugated or driven away in interior forests by invading Rajputs. The subjugation
or life in forests brought changes in their lifestyle and culture. But it is necessary to
remember that this sort of culture is the result of the historical experiences through which
they have passed.
In British and Gaikwad territories things took a fairly different shape. Gaikwad
won the kingdom from a Bhil chief and established his fort which came to be known as
‘Sogandh’ (Desai, 1920). Gaikwad invited Patidars from Kheda who cleared forests and
settled in tribal areas of Baroda in South Gujarat. Dublas of Valsad and Surat, Vasavas of
Bharuch and Rathwasd of Baroda were traditionally cultivating land in this zone. The
Rathwas were known as Rathwa Koli and Koli is a caste. However, they were not
‘owners’ of land in legal sense of the term because land settlement was not done in this
area. Patidars settled here and became legal owners whereas tribals became their
agricultural labourers.

The Parsis had fled into tribal belt in the 15th and 16th centuries to escape to
prosecution at the hands of Sultan of Gujarat (Hardiman, 1985). They settled in rural
South Gujarat and gradually became landowners whereas erstwhile owners Dublas
became their ‘halis’ or landless labourers. How they became landless labourers is to be
seen in their land relations. Things were not much different in Rajasthan, Madhya
Pradesh and Maharashtra.

As a result of the Muslim invasion of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Malwa that occurred
during that time, many Rajput warriors fled these areas and came to settle in the Narmada
valley. Around 1437 AD, the Rathore (Rajput) chieftain Anand Dev claimed for himself
the kingdom of Aliraipur, his kin carving up Phulmal, Sondwa and Jobat as their territory
(Baviskar, 1995: 54).

This type of formation of states in tribal regions subjected tribals to the Rajput
authority. Thus, when the word ‘tribe’ was coined for forest dwellers, they were not
isolated and politically autonomous people. They were already integrated within the
administration of British India or within the Indian states where the British kept a watch.
Thus, the backwardness of Indian tribes is because of this subjugation and not because of
isolation and autonomy.

Though states were established in tribal regions, there was not much ‘administration’ by
native states in interior tribal villages. Native states invited non-tribal cultivators from
plains and settled them in not much interior parts. Compared to native tribals, the non-
tribal peasants came with superior agricultural technology and produced surplus with the
help of the tribal labourers. In almost all cases non-tribals who came late became
landowners whereas the native tribals became landless labourers. In Gujarat, this sort of
master-servant relationship developed in some parts having mixed population.
Backwardness of landless labourer tribes should be attributed to this relationship. The
non-tribal masters were against any sort of social reform among these tribals and they
were harassing those tribals who were doing such activities (Joshi, 1980: 21). Around
1922 when Jugatrarn Dave went to Sarbhon village and started teaching Halpatis, his
efforts met with failure because their masters did not allow Halpatis to attend school
(Dave, 1975). Not only that, but they were kept as bonded laborers by the landowner
masters and they had no freedom to choose their fate (Breman, 1974: 36-45). The
disintegration of ‘hali’ (bonded labour) system was even more painful for erstwhile
servants. Now, he is free in a free market but has no job. The question for him was not
only that of liberation but also of empowerment so that he gets his dues.

When we talk of land and tribals, land acquisition for development purpose must
be kept in mind. Almost all dams are located in tribal areas. This location is important
because the irrigation helps non-tribals in plains, while tribals get alienated from their
land. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 provides for cash compensation. It is assumed
that with the compensation in form of cash they receive, the tribal oustees would
purchase land elsewhere and get resettled. The special situation of the tribals was not
taken into consideration and policy for their rehabilitation was not formulated. As a
result, several thousand tribal oustees were deprived in such development projects (Joshi,
1987: 21-26).

Same is the case of tribal’s relationship with forests. Prior to 1854, forest was not
a scarce commodity and tribals were traditionally enjoying forest rights. But then forest
wood was required to build battleships in England. It was also required to build railway
lines. When the British government started cutting forest for this and such other purposes,
there were encounters. By the enactment of the Forest Act of 1864, the government took
away all the customary forest rights of the tribals. They were allowed to cultivate forest
land only by paying fines.
Thus, tribal backwardness is neither cultural nor social (caste-based) at root. They were
not isolated, homogeneous tribals as viewed by some British anthropologists. They had
relations with people in plains. But, in this relationship, they have always remained losers
and suffered in one way or the other. This is so in many other countries where native
tribals have lost to invaders. But, the context of tribal society with the non-tribal society
is different in India and hence the nature of the problem is different. The tribals and non-
tribals have been living side by side for centuries. They were not completely cut off from
one another.

Conclusion

So, the tribals are part of the Indian society, at the same time they are different. Special
policy and programmes are required to address and redress these differences.
When we plan for tribal development, we have to regard these differences, take a special
note of their different situations and capabilities and provide them facilitation to develop
on the line they want to take. The very meaning of development is unfolding from within.
This means that the tribals have to unfold their capabilities to develop. Outsiders cannot
develop tribals; they can become only facilitators if they want to do so. If they have to
unfold from within, they must have participation in any development decision. Their felt
needs should be transformed in development programmes. Nehru did this in slightly
different manner when he proclaimed ‘Panchsheel’.

How can tribals participate in their development programmes? They can

participate only if they are considered as equals. The command and obey relationship can
take place between un-equals only. Individual tribal is too weak to stand as equal against
a non-tribal. So they have to get, organized. The forms of organization could be different
depending upon different programmes. The non-tribals have to work as facilitator for
organization-building. Once organized on the basis of felt needs, they will develop
content and programmes for their participation. When tribals’ participation, in different
development programmes, is accepted in various departmental documents, it should not
remain ceremonial.

2 Parameters of Tribal Development

Some Key Conceptual Issues
Anand Kashyap
‘Development’ of a society, to my mind, instead of being a monolithic and linear process
of creating economic abundance, is a holistic process of social transformation from less
creative to greater creative participation of its members at the individual and collective
levels. Emphasis on ‘creative participation’ of the members and institutions implies
minimization of the entropy or disorderliness in a social system and maximization of
‘creativity’ so as to achieve a symbiotic transformation of ‘man-nature and society’
relationship without generating any antithesis or conflicts between them. In this
perspective I have tried to raise two conceptual issues with regard to ‘development’: one
concerning the econocentric-modernization model of development and the other
concerning pluralism vis-a-vis national integration with special reference to tribal culture.
Most of the problems confronting a society in general and tribal societies in particular
emanate from the prevalent model of ‘development’ which can be characterized
culturally as a sterile and economically a monolithic model, i.e., “capital and energy
intensive, extractive, discriminatory, waste-generating and non-regenerative, power and
wealth centralizing, and corporate in nature.”

Let me elaborate little more on my emphasis on ‘creativity’. ‘Work’ in fact has two
aspects or values, viz., the instrumental or the economic value and aesthetic or the
expressive value. A human action or work has a third dimension also, i.e., a
transcendental value, but it does not concern us here. If, instead of placing balanced and
integral emphasis on both the aspects, only one aspect is emphasized, as it happens in
the prevalent model of ‘development’, it will rob the human endeavour of its creative
thrust to excel and breed alienation and entropy in
realms and levels of social living. Such an approach can impose a policy decision from
above but can never unfold the latent creative potentialities of a society from within
resulting into a lopsided, quantitative and monolithic ‘deve1opmnt’ with the increase in
the extent of alienation at the individual and collective levels both. In my perception
therefore, I am inclined to define ‘development’ as a process of ‘increase in creativity’
and decline in entropy or extent of criminality which is possible only when a holistic and
symbiotic process of social transformation could be ensured. With regard to such a
process of ‘development’ the question is not merely that of creating abundance or
prosperity as an alternative to the removal of poverty, but it also involves questions such
as: Is abundance real alternative to poverty? If yes, then, how it is created and what ire its
costs, who bears them and how the benefits of ‘development’ are distributed or who is
benefited by the outcome most: the ‘haves’ or the ‘have-nots’? The problem of
distributive justice again is not a simple problem which could be tackled exclusively
through some structural-institutional mechanism alone. It involves a great deal of moral
issues as well as the realms of self awareness or consciousness also. The collapse of a
well-structured system of Soviet edifice, reinforced through well-thought out ideology
and institutional mechanisms, is not a distant example of human history to support our
contention.

Many problems concerning tribal development like displacement, poverty alleviation,

health and disease, land alienation, indebtedness, criminalization, etc., in fact, are the
resultant effects of such a ‘development’ model of its econocentric perspective. Though
the much publicized ‘human face’ of this model projected various welfare schemes but
they are nothing more than cosmetics or administering pain-killers instead of providing a
genuine remedy to the ailment. It is quite an established fact that during the last few
decades of such a model of development disparities between the rich and poor, urban and
rural, nature and civilization have increased to a staggering proportion and the centralized
mega projects of irrigation and power generation have shown more their inhuman face of
displacing the poor tribals and generating revolts than harnessing the creative potentials
of the human lots that self-reliant and eco-friendly, job-oriented smaller projects could
have done. Take the case of mega irrigation projects which have aroused a big
controversy recently. Movements launched against such projects by the social activists
and environmentalists like Sunderlal Bahuguna in Garhwal, Baba Amte and Medha
Patkar in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra are quite well known. In a study of large-
scale projects with regard to the displacement problem it was estimated that during 40
years from 1951 to 1991, 185 lakh people have been displaced--an average of 4,60,000
unfortunates every year. And, three out of every four ousted by such dams are tribals and
out of 77 per cent oustees only 29 per cent are rehabilitated. 2 Paradoxically, the tribals
who have been the genuine and rightful children of Mother Nature are being projected as
inimical to the conservationist policy vis-a-vis the urban elite who in reality are the worst
exploiters of the forest culture and its biotic wealth. A paper prepared by the Planning
Commission of India states that a large majority of India’s population is being
increasingly denied access to natural resources. But, on the other hand, the flow of these
resources to urban centres, to support luxury consumption, continues unabated.3 The
biggest failure of the modernization model of development is that it has disintegrated the
symbiotic holism of ‘man-nature and society’ relationship through its overemphasis on
econocentrism and consumerism, and the result is alienation and lopsided development.
The enduring and sustainable development, therefore, is always a self-generative, self-
reliant, need-based and not greed-based, and an emancipatory process of social
transformation which leads a society to become a ‘self-re liant’ and ‘creative’ society
rather than merely a ‘developing’ or a ‘developed’ society as such. Generating affluence
or abundance is not a sufficient condition of genuine ‘deve1opment’. Development, to
my mind, is not a simple bipolar or linear process of change from the levels of’ scarcity
to that of abundance as in a capitalist society where consumerism is the religion and
market functions as God, but rather it is a three-dimensional process involving a take-off
stage from the levels of ‘poverty’ and ‘deprivation’ and culminating into the third
dimension of evolving a ‘self-reliant’ and ‘creative’ society where ‘development’,
‘environment’ and ‘culture’ go hand in hand and human face of man is not lost. Instances
of such a ‘development’ are though not frequent but not non-existent also. The example
of Ralegan Shindi—a small village in Maharashtra, experiencing a holistic development
from economic to cultural levels under the selfless and inspiring leadership of Anna
Hazare is the burning example. Ralegan Shindi is a small village of the population of
1,200 divided into 220 families (1971 census) which earlier had a declining agriculture
and a vanishing forest and as a result to compensate this loss the entire village took to
illicit brewing of liquors as the primary industry. This illegal industry, in turn brought
many outside developments making this small village known in the police records as the
village of toughs and goons, thus nourishing a culture of criminality. Government and
other voluntary agencies like Tata Relief Committee and the Catholic Relief Service
brought in medicines and provided financial help also for constructing village wells, tree
plantation, etc., but that proved to be mere window-dressing. Anna Hazare, a retired
military person, inspired by the writings of Swami Vivekananda, took the challenge of
upliftment of Shindi and approached this task through cultivating moral awareness, i.e.,
generating self-awareness first with the help of renovating the abandoned and dilapidated
village temple called Yadav Baba’s temple and this shrine in turn served as the heart of
entire community--a real community centre—of all socio-religious activities (satsang)
and moral regeneration programmes. Anna Hazare’s second task was to close down all
liquor brewing and alcohol and narcotics. The third step was the creation of systems to
improve the economy of the village with an emphasis on self-reliance in terms of human
as well as natural resources. Thus, the basic emphasis of Anna Hazare was to evolve a
‘civil society’ rather than an ‘affluent society’—a society which is responsible to itself
and its environment, and responsive to the needs of its members, rich or poor, upper caste
or lower caste.4

As K. S. Singh informs, in the similar vein, creative spirit of the tribals in history was
unleashed through the Bhakti movements spearheaded by Chaitnya who had passed
through the Jharkhnand, and Kabir who cared for the deprived lot during medieval times.
These moral and social reform movements in different saintly orders brought a moral and
social reform among Oraons, Santhals, Mundas and Bhils. In this sense ‘Tribal
Bhagatism’ served as a bridge between the tribal (jana) and non- tribal (jati) Hindu
society.5 In modern times it was Mahatma Gandhi who could make a creative use of this
cultural tradition. While to Hindu peasantry he appeared as a Bhakti preacher, to tribals
as Bhagat. He spoke predominantly in Bhakti idioms of Rama Rajya, efficacy of
Ramnam, service to Daridra Narain in his evening prayer meetings which acted as the
most effective two-step flow of communication with the masses. His moral preachings,
teetotalism, maintaining purity, etc, appealed to tribal Bhagat leaders and generated
movements like Tana Bhagat movement among Oraons, Haribaba movement among the
Hos and allied tribes and Rajmohini movement among the Gonds. It was Gandhi who
could infuse into these traditional Bhakti movements political overtone of the freedom
movement and ideology of swadeshi and swaraj, civil disobedience and ahimsa. Among
the Bhils of Rajasthan and Gujarat too such an impact of Gandhi was quite evident.
Thakkar Bappa—a Gandhian--quotes a Bhil bhajan to this effect: Do you know what
Gandhi tells you?

Give up liquor, eating meat, stealing, rioting,

spin charkha, educate children, and worship Ram

as the true God.6

Thakkar Bapa worked out quite successfully to transform tribals though Bhil Seva
Mandal and Ashrams (residential schools).

Unlike government programmes which are predominantly economistic in nature

and conducted half-heartedly and interfered selfishly by the politicians, Gandhi and
other Bhakti-based approaches were primarily cultural, value-centric and educational that
sought to unfold their creative energies and weld them in the task of nation-building.
Thus, the first issue concerns with the econocentric and modernization model of
development. The second major issue on which I want to share my thoughts is the issue
of national integration vis-a-vis pluralism, i.e., the issue of creating unity within diversity
with special reference to tribals.

In contrast to many other civilizations like Greeco-Roman and Semetic, Indian

civilization can be characterized as ‘pluralist’ in orientation which not only tolerates
contrasts and diversity but even goes a step ahead to seek enrichment from the diversity
through various kinds of acculturative processes ranging from arts and ideas to faiths and
philosophies. Right from the ancient times the mainstream or the dominant Aryo-
Brahmanic tradition has co-existed with the native aborigines (janas) and, despite
differences and minor conflicts, learnt from each other and co-existed without defacing
one another’s identity and styles of life. This kind of pluralism can be characterized as the
‘integral pluralism’ where cultural diversity and social minorities co-exist within a
loosely structured unity and the part enjoys a fair degree of autonomy within the whole.

The integral pluralism can be illustrated with the help of ‘oceanic circles’ where
each circle is autonomous to a degree but at other levels merges itself into the
encompassing ring of waves.

Thus aboriginals and tribes as ‘minorities’ had traditionally been a part of Indian
civilization and their way of life had contributed a great deal in its formation and
development throughout the history. It is only a few hundred years back that tribals were
cut-off from the mainstream and marginalized. With the onset of industrialization and
urbanization, coupled with the increasing state interference and control in every sphere of
life, tribals were accorded an isolationist treatment. British gave a new form and meaning
to traditional ethnic pluralism. From ‘minority’ status they got the ‘marginal’ status. This
was ‘equidistant’ notion of pluralism which meant equidistanciation of different ethnic
groups from the centre of power and authority. The third kind of pluralism is the
pluralism of ‘market economy’ where instead of cultural values or the political authority
as the binding force it is the force of ‘market economy’ that controls and coordinates the
co-existence of heterogeneous groups. This is a typical neo-colonialist and hegemonistic
approach of the modern capitalist world where pluralism leads to economic exploitation
of the Third World countries and exploitation of the weaker or marginal sections by the
stronger ones through creating economic dependence upon them. ‘Centre and periphery’
thesis has been its dominant ideology. For the latter two approaches tribals constitute
‘other societies’ or ‘other culture’, i.e., not an integral part of one’s own culture,
deserving some concessions only and not the natural rights. Their existence is justified
either as curios to be retained and conserved like museum pieces or proselytized and
assimilated into the mainstream hagemonism. It is only first approach of ‘integral
pluralism’ that seeks to develop all ethnic groups and weaker sections as a part of one’s
own society and not merely as a marginal group or the other society. The isolationist
policy which envisaged to keep tribal aborigines a separate ethnic identity is an outcome
of this approach and lately now the third approach to pluralism i.e., ‘market economy’
approach has also joined hands with the British-initiated authoritarian pluralism which
has further marginalized tribals exposing them to double or rather triple exploitation, viz.,
politica1, religious and economic exploitation. Political exploitation is done by the
political parties through their treatment of the tribals and ethnic groups as vote-bank
deposits and economic exploitation in the labour markets by the contractors and
industrialists and cultural or religious exploitation by the missionaries and other
international agencies.

Indian civilization has been characterized by Rabindra Nath Tagore as ‘Aranyak

Sanskriti’, i.e., quintessentially a forest culture, for forest instead of representing a pre-
civilized barbaric stage on the evolutionary scale, has rather been the home of a
developed civilization where Vedic hymns were composed and Indian cosmology and
different philosophical systems were created. Forests served as the abode of two
paradoxical cultures: one, the highly enlightened rishis (seers) as the carriers of high
culture and second, the aboriginies or tribals (janas) ---the most unsophisticated lot living
in the caves and mountains having their own cultural traditions and styles of life. Thus,
like modern metropolis, ancient forests too were the home of contrasts which sometimes
opposed one another but were mostly cooperative and dependent upon each other. The
narratives in the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata provide ample testimony of this
natural dependence between the ‘primitives’ and the ‘civilized’. The word ‘primitive’ is
used here in the positive sense, instead of the prevalent negative one, to connote the
power of vital aestheticism and holistic perception of human existence which the
Brahmanic civilization lacked. In fact, ‘primitivism’ has served Indian civilization
vigorously as a back-shining of the ‘medal’, i.e., an inevitable facet of the civilization. As
Lannoy has observed, whenever the Great Tradition was at the verge of sterility, when
asceticism and dry scholasticism threatened the general health of Hindu society waves of
fresh energy seem to have coursed upward from the Antepodes, i.e., ‘minority’ societies. 7
In fact, the dialectic of ‘aestheticism’ vis-a-vis ‘asceticism’, which is a major constant of
Indian Civilization, has been a contribution of this co-existence of two different cultures.
Among various dichotomies like Prakriti and Purusha, Pravrittii and Nivritti one
essential component was a contribution of the native cultural traditions. Even Ghotul was
the prototype of Ashrama. Thus, the vitality of Indian Civilization lies in the cultural
correspondence between its ‘classical’ and the ‘primitive’ traditions and its ‘integral
pluralism’ which nourished diversity to enrich unity. It is in the medieval and modern
epochs of Indian history that with the closing of the social ranks and excessive
interference of political authority creativity of such an ‘integral pluralism’ was
undermined and a hiatus between the ‘heterodox’ and the ‘orthodox’ traditions, between
the castes and the tribes and between the folk and the elite, got created.

It was in the post-independence India that a planned national perspective of

integrating tribals with the national mainstream was envisaged and the five-principles
(Panchsheel) of tribal development were evolved but those were hardly practised. The
basic limitation in the practised policies is that instead of utilizing the traditional wisdom
and our own cultural idioms as Mahatma Gandhi and other social activists did
government policies depend more on bureaucrats and west-trained middle class expertise
which lacks in coming to grips with the reality at many points, specially with regard to its
cultural moorings. Besides, instead of understanding and deciphering traditional ‘integral
pluralism’ carefully, at the instance of politicians and vested interests, it is mostly applied
in a distorted manner thus serving their own interests rather than that of the tribals.
Mostly we are metropolitanist in our outlook and looked at the tribals as ‘other people’
rather than as our own brethren. The entire approach of according a ‘marginal’ status
instead of traditional ‘minority’ status to them reflects this attitude which should be
properly examined and reviewed.
15 Impact of Development Projects on Tribals

It is axiomatic that all human societies, at all times, possess a creative capacity for
development in accordance with their own internal laws and necessities, as well as
flexible adaptation-innovation complexes corresponding to the changing local
circumstances. Whereas neither development nor spatial mobility is unique to modern
civilization, the contemporary imposition of the supposedly universal model of
development and the consequent dispossession problematique is of a qualitatively
different order, built on the unequal socio-political structure, both at national and global
levels. Small wonder, social science literature is by now overburdened with
post-modern critique of development history and the appalling results.

What then are the basic tenets and assumptions of this dominating development
paradigm which have direct bearing on tribal people’s problematique? Being deeply
rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the paradigm of development has treated the rest
of the biosphere as an enemy to be defeated and tortured for immediate maximization of
exchange value. This anthropocentric and essentially reductionist perspective of natural
world has eroded the ecological resource base of the humanity and destroyed the
customary tribal matrix of harmonious, holistic and anticipatory equilibrium between
nature and culture.

Secondly, the doctrine of individualism and statist ideology being crucial for capitalist
and neo-colonialist development, the collective identities are severely impaired and
stigmatized. Instead of evolving a culturally specific balance between the principles of
individualism and corporate existence, the epistemology of individualism and
privatization of resource base have been furiously imposed for the elimination of the very
existence of indigenous collective identities, and usurp their territorial resources,
knowledge systems and the labour for the overtly exploitative market.

Thirdly, the basic assumption of reductionism in the modern science being parts
are ontologically prior to the wholes, and the emphasis on uniformity, separability and
homogeneity among the objects generated a context-tree abstraction of knowledge and an
obsession for quantification like the GNP and rate of economic growth rather than
quality of life.

Fourthly, as the dominant notion of development is gradual triumph of reason,

rationality and value neutrality, it has consistently cultivated a contempt for
consciousness, values, ethics and traditions, and thereby, institutionalized the belief that
abandoning the traditional cultural and institutional elements is the sine-qua-non of
development.

And finally, the conception and theory of development firmly insists that the
motive forces of development of the backward people are external infusion of capital,
technology and institutions, an alibi for neo-colonial hegemony.
 In sum, development projects are handed down without any concern for the
cultural-historical and ecological complexities prevailing in the tribal regions. Based
upon anthropocentric premises of mutilation nature, customary institutions and values,
imposition of individualism, statist ideology and reductionist worldview, the
development practices have wrecked the physical, cultural and cognitive survival of the
large masses of the country, specially tribals, dalits, minorities, women and children.
Development has become a label for plunder and violence.

Much has been written on the large scale physical displacement of tribals due to
mega hydroelectric and mining projects. But this indicates only a partial truth and
somehow, inadvertently perhaps, conceals the unpalatable whole truth, of
capitalist exploitation and imperialist control. Development project encompasses a whole
gamut of territorial resources taken away by the state, powerful individuals, private
enterprises and transnational corporations, as well as displacement from one’s own
culture, creativity, community, power and knowledge systems through involuntary
superimposition of the values and institutions of the globally and nationally dominant
societies.

The nexus between dominant development paradigm and adivasi imbroglio can
easily be traced to the colonial era, though the criticality of their survival is essentially a
post-colonial phenomenon. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the colonial
administration began the process of conferring legal titles of landownership to individuals
in some tribal regions, and treated the rest of the land as res nullius which effectively
meant absolute ownership of the state. After independence, private ownership is
institutionalized and massive customary corporate lands and land-based resources are
alienated by both the state and private entrepreneurs.

Survey and settlement of land happens to be the prerequisite for conferring individual
proprietorship. But large parts of tribal areas still remain unsurveyed, and elsewhere the
adopted method of cadastral survey precludes measurement of land beyond 90 slope.
Consequently, between 25 and 40 per cent of cultivated lands of the tribals are
derecognized, and/or metamorphosed the chief/headman as the real owner of land.
Moreover, by derecognizing the corporate rights over land-based resources on which
nearly 15 million tribals currently depend to some extent, between 40 and 80 per cent of
the total land-based resources in tribal regions are snatched away without any
compensation whatsoever. Besides, 12 per cent of the tribals who practice shifting
agriculture are treated as illegal encroachers on the ground that the land is not
continuously cultivated.

The increased commercial extraction of timber, establishment of numerous forest-

based industries and the so-called development projects have mutilated the forests, scared
away the game, polluted water resources, depleted the fish stocks and eventually,
devastated the tribal livelihoods. Agribusiness, plantations, afforestation by mono-
cultural species, refugee settlements, villagification, highway projects, some land reform
measures, biosphere reserves, game sanctuaries, national parks, reserved forests, etc.,
have displaced the tribal people from their survival bases and sustainable use of the forest
resources.

A common feature shared by most of the tribal habitats is their remoteness and
marginal quality of territorial resources. In the past, exploitation of such poor regions was
found both difficult and uneconomic. But, the recent rapid technological advancement
and unrivalled economic and political strength of world capitalism, and the rising power
of neo-colonialism through the G-7 directly and the IMF, IBRD, etc., as agencies, have
created favourable conditions for the evasion and extraction of natural resources from the
ecologically fragile territories of the tribal peoples. Thus, forced evictions of tribals to
make way for mammoth capital intensive development projects have become a
distressingly routine and ever-increasing phenomenon. The zealously extracted water and
sub-surface minerals accentuated the tribals’ dispossession from their lands, forests,
wildlife and water resources. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (and the amendment 1984)
is indiscriminately invoked to alienate tribals’ lands in the name of public purposes. That
is to say, for the greater good of the Indian people, few tribals should have to make
sacrifices in terms of surrendering their survival bases and accept the development
projects as fait accompli.

It is not a mere coincidence that there is a heavy concentration of industrial and mining
activities in the central tribal belt. All the massive steel plants, NALCO, heavy
engineering concerns, most river basin development schemes and hydropower projects, a
chain of forest-based and ancillary industries and an increasing number of highly
polluting industries are located in this region. These projects are intrinsically associated
with the predatory activities of giant corporations and profit seeking agencies, connected
with an undercurrent of authoritarian and ethnocentric values and political institutions.
Disinformation and suppression of dissent are integral dimensions of these developments.
And the process has become acute ever since the adoption of New Economic Policy in
mid-1991.
Despite intense industrial activity in the central Indian tribal belt, the tribal
employment in modern enterprises is negligible. Apart from the provisions of
Apprenticeship Act, there is no stipulation for private or joint sector enterprises to recruit
certain percentage of dispossessed tribal workforce. The public too denies their
recruitment under different pretexts. Meanwhile, the tribals are forced to live in
juxtaposition with alien capitalist relations and cultures, with traumatic results. They are
forced onto the ever-expanding low paid, insecure, transient and destitute labour market.
Indeed, about 40 per cent of the tribals of central India supplement their income by
participating in this distorted and over exploitative capitalist sector. Besides, many more
are slowly crushed into oblivion in their homeland or in urban slums. This is nothing
short of ethnocide. At stake is their economic and cultural survival.

Let us briefly glance at the hydroelectric projects. India happens to be the second
most dammed country in the world. It invested over Rs. 193 billion by 1985 and the
figures has probably doubled by now. The World Bank has directly funded as many as 87
large-scale dam projects in India as against only 58 for the whole of the African continent
and 59 for Latin America. Between 1981 and 1990, the World Bank provided $7 billion
for such projects in India, i.e., one-fifth of its total funding for 85 countries world over.
Suffice to reiterate that almost all major darn projects in India are intrinsically linked to
world capitalism and its obsequious national stooges. Nearly 60 per cent of these large
darns are located in central and western India where about 80 per cent of the tribals live.
But no more than 5 per cent of their lands are assured of irrigation. In fact, the traditional
methods of water harvesting and spreading are rendered non-viable. The supply of
electric power is again a luxury and constitute obvious exceptions in tribal regions.

There is no reliable and complete information on the number of tribals displaced

in the country since independence. The estimates range between 5 and 7 million-- mostly
by the dams, followed by mines and industries— or approximately one in every ten
tribals has been displaced by different development projects. It is not only the magnitude
of involuntary tribal displacement that should attract the special concern but also the
sacrifice of collective identity, historical and cultural heritage, and of course, the survival
support. Small wonder, poverty, malnutrition, mortality, morbidity, illiteracy,
unemployment, debt bondage, and serfdom among the tribals is markedly higher.

Despite the unfathomable gravity of the sufferings of the displaced in terms of

economic pauperization, political disempowerment and cultural alienation, India--the
largest democracy on earth--is yet to formulate a national policy for the relocation and
rehabilitation of project oustees. For each project, separate policies are made in an ad hoc
and ephemeral manner. Faced with the national and international pressure, the Indian
government sought to have a national policy, but curiously there are at least three drafts
from three ministries in circulation. It seems a just policy demands political battles for a
rule of law even in a democracy.

Incidently, the indiscriminate involuntary displacement of the tribals violates several

national and international instruments. For instance, the UN Convention on Civil and
Political Rights (1966) holds that “in no case may a people be deprived of its own means
of subsistence” (Art.2). Similarly, the UN Declaration on Racism and Racial
Discrimination (1978) specially endorses, “the right of indigenous people to maintain
their traditional structure of economy and culture” and stresses that “their land, land
rights and natural resources should not be taken away from them” (Art.21). The ILO
Convention 107 on Tribal and Indigenous Population (1957), which India ratified in
1962, abides that when in exceptional circumstances the tribals are displaced, they shall
be provided with lands of quality, at least equal to that of the land previously occupied,
individually and collectively by them, suitable for their present needs and future
development. But hardly a quarter of the tribals displaced have been given alternate dry
and mostly infertile lands in exchange of the loss of their private lands. The pastoralists,
hunters, food gatherers, forest land cultivators, shifting cultivators, landless artisans,
forest produce collectors and others who lack individual titles to lands, constituting at
least one-third of the total displaced tribals, did neither receive any compensation nor
alternate employment. The rest received meagre cash compensations in several
instalments, calculated on the basis of local market value of land, which incidently
happened to be the lowest due to the restrictions on land transfer in scheduled areas. Even
if India does not ratify the revised ILO Convention 169 (1989), it is legally bound by the
provision of ILO Convention 107 until it denounces it; and that is not possible before the
year 2002.

India happens to be one of the worst countries with regard to the rehabilitation of
the displaced. In fact, it has provisions like the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and
Development) Act, 1957 which deny to compensate the displaced people. This is now
open to TNCs. There is, of course, no legal provision except in the sixth schedule area to
recognize group rights of tribals over their land and land-based resources and their
cultural and political institutions.

In sum modern development projects not only physically displace increasing number of
tribal people from their territorial survival resources and thereby destroy their traditional
socio-economic structures but also tend to mutilate their very identity, social
reproduction, culture, art forms, language skills and the just limited autonomy. Although
published as to serve the common interest of the Indian people, these giant monstrosities
benefit only a small affluent elite and multinational funding agencies and other
obsequious stooges of world capitalism. Meanwhile, the tribal people get marginalized
and forced to enter the dehumanized cheap labour market and slum residency. They
invariably face recolonization and general economic subjugation, socio-cultural
stigmatization and various degrees of ethnocide. The fundamental asymmetry in the
decision making process is aggressively articulated through the ideologies of
individualism, modernization and nation building. Their customary holistic and
anticipatory conception of nature, generic and corporate character of land, community
oriented values and collective identities, self-management systems, cognitive heritage,
unique socio-cultural-linguistic framework and consensual decision making process are
derecognized and castigated resulting in a silent and subtle form of ethnocide. The
cultural hegemony of the dominant global and national society has eroded the
reproductibility of their collective existence—an indication of irreversible ethnocide.

Fortunately, however, an increasing number of conscious and concerned

individuals and organizations in search of alternative visions of future tend to support the
struggles of the tribal people to defend, recuperate and revalidate their customary rights
over their land and land-based endowments as well as for protection of their cultures and
self-esteem. Tribal survival and sustainable development depend upon a system of self-
development based on their own creative force, corporate
productive resources and cognitive structures, where the terms of dynamic are defined by
the concerned people themselves. This, of course, is a political question as well as a
historical imperative of our times.

Meanwhile, it is not too much to ask from a democratic we1fare state a

comprehensive national policy on socio-economic and cultural rehabilitation of the
displaced persons through an act of parliament which should include (a) before
undertaking any large scale project that displaces persons, all
other alternatives be explored, and that the considered and free opinion of all the
potentially affected are ascertained; (b) the cost or rehabilitation, environmental
restoration and ecological sustainability of the region should form an integral part of the
project; (c) the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 amended to prohibit its misuse and define the
term ‘public purpose’; (d) regulations applicable to non-tribals for alienation of tribal
lands be made applicable as far as possible to both public and private national and
multinational enterprises; (e) the quantum of compensation be determined in the land of
individual and corporate rights over land and land-based survival resources, and there
shall be fair provision of royalty to the displaced on the value of surface and sub-surface
resources; and (f) resettlements be in terms of community for oustees present and future
socio-economic and cultural survival with dignity in the hostile surroundings.

The aforesaid thought at best can only be meaningful through political activism of the
system. Struggles of the affected persons alone may not have great significance. Those
who look forward to a holistic, ecologically sustainable and culturally specific model of
development need to join. And, the concerned scientists need to provide the intellectual
input and play the advocacy role as is done in several other countries. The voluntary
organizations too need introspection, for they too are largely sponsored by such funding
and sponsoring agencies which have vested interests in the current development projects.
After all, all these activists and academics are inclined to build a model of development
based on the principle of satisfying individual human needs and raising the quality of life
through greater self-reliance, autonomy, balanced interdependence between global,
regional and local processes as well as participatory democracy at the grassroot
levels, sustainability of use of natural resources and respect of biological, cultural and
cognitive diversities. In the absence of the appropriate articulation of the motive forces,
any alternative model of development, a paradigm shift, carries little significance. In
short, the alternative development paradigm must be situated in the matrix of decisive
struggles against imperialism and their domestic allies aimed at a viable vision of socio-
economic-cu1tura1 and ecological harmony. The resultant scenario would be the
emergence of multiple co-existing civilizations that respect both the people and the
nature. Tomorrow will judge us.