![]()
Chapter 1
Globalisation and the Indian Himalayan states
Mitigating or accentuating marginalisation?
T. S. Papola
Eleven Indian states – Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura and Uttarakhand – have entire, major or minor parts of their territory in the hilly and mountainous region of the Himalayas. They also happen to be on the geographical and political margin of the country. Each of them shares borders with one or more foreign nations. Seven of them located in the north-eastern part of the country are beyond another large country, namely Bangladesh, and are connected with mainland India by only a narrow passage. The geopolitical marginality of these states is exacerbated by isolation caused by relatively low levels of transport and communication connectivity.1 Thus, the natural and man-made factors combine to marginalise these areas. And when they are inhabited by tribals and ethnic communities, as happens quite often, they also suffer from cultural marginalisation (Jodha, 2001).
Globalisation is often seen as a secular and equalising process and therefore is expected to bring marginalised areas and communities into the mainstream of economic and social activities by enabling them to link with other areas and wider markets through the use of the comparative advantage provided by their special resource endowments. The extent to which these areas can benefit from globalisation would depend on the availability and utilisability of unique resources, as they face distinct disadvantage in production of goods and services that are in competition with those produced in the mainstream plain land areas. Dependence on the production of common goods is, in fact, likely to lead to an exacerbation of marginalisation of these areas in so far as globalisation, with opening up of these areas to the products from outside, will put the local production at a disadvantage. Globalisation in such cases may lead to reduction in isolation but, at the same time, may make the local population highly dependent on other areas, both for income and for products. Outmigration may increase, and those left behind may have to subsist primarily on remittances.
The resource base
The Indian Himalayan region, in which the 11 states mentioned earlier lie fully or partially, is proverbially rich in resources. Low population density adds to this ‘richness’, as it leads to high per capita availability of these resources, particularly land. Most of them have large parts of their area under forests, rich not only in wood but also in minor forest resources and flora and fauna and biodiversity. A large number of rivers flow in and from these states with high potential for hydropower generation. Some of them also have mineral resources of high value.
What, however, appears as richness of resources on the surface does not translate into actually usable potential for economic benefit. No doubt population is thinly distributed across vast tracts of land. But most of this land is not fit for cultivation. Population density as per provisional figures from Census 2011 is as low as 17 in Arunachal Pradesh and 52 in Mizoram. It is more than 100 in Uttarakhand (189), Jammu and Kashmir (124), Nagaland (119), Himachal Pradesh (123) and Meghalaya (132) but still much lower than 382 for the country as a whole. It is, of course, high at 350 in Tripura, a predominantly plain land state. Similar is the case for Assam, with a figure of 397, but it is much lower in the two hill districts, North Cachar and Karbi Anglong. In 2001, it was 65 for these districts as compared to 340 for the whole state.
Low density of population, however, does not really mean larger availability of usable land. Only 5 per cent of the geographical area in Arunachal Pradesh, 4.7 per cent in Jammu and Kashmir, about 11 per cent in Manipur, 15 per cent in Himachal Pradesh, and 18 per cent in Mizoram were cultivable, as against 56 per cent in the country as a whole. As a result, the net sown area per person was only 0.07 hectares in Jammu and Kashmir; 0.08 hectares in Himachal Pradesh, Tripura and Uttarakhand; and 0.09 hectares in Meghalaya, as against 0.12 hectares in the country as a whole (Table 1.1). Cultivable land that is available is also of poor quality: most of it being in slopes can be used only in small terraces, thus not permitting the use of technology suitable for larger plots, and is mostly unirrigated, as diverting water from rivers flowing in the valleys to the cultivated fields mostly located in uplands is technologically difficult and economically non-viable. Thus, of the net sown area, while about 40 per cent is irrigated in the country as a whole, the extent is only 11 per cent in Mizoram, 17 per cent in Sikkim and 18 per cent in Himachal Pradesh.
Table 1.1 Population density, cultivable area and per capita net sown area in Indian Himalayan states | S. no. | States | Population density (persons per square kilometre area) (2011) | Cultivable land (percentage of geographical area) (2007–8) | Per capita net sown area (hectares) (2007–8) |
1 | Arunachal Pradesh | 17 | 5.0 | 0.18 |
2 | Himachal Pradesh | 123 | 14.6 | 0.08 |
3 | Jammu and Kashmir | 124 | 4.7 | 0.07 |
4 | Manipur | 122 | 10.8 | 0.10 |
5 | Meghalaya | 132 | 47.1 | 0.09 |
6 | Mizoram | 52 | 17.8 | 0.10 |
7 | Nagaland | 119 | 40.8 | 0.15 |
8 | Sikkim | 86 | 21.1 | 0.18 |
9 | Tripura | 350 | 29.5 | 0.08 |
10 | Uttarak... |
