Pursuing Alternative Development

Indigenous People, Ethnic Organization and Agency

M. Saiful Islam

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781137572103
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Cultural & Social Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

Drawing upon ethnographic descriptions of three grassroots ethnic organizations, which work for indigenous peoples in promoting economic livelihood, education and strive for social justice, this book investigates the possibilities and challenges of alternative development.

1

Introduction: Rethinking Orthodox Development

Abstract: Drawing upon recent theories and debates in development, this chapter argues that conventional development discourse has grossly failed to achieve its goals and objectives, and it is time to think about alternative models of development. However, what would be the modalities of such alternatives? – A question that has yet to be conclusively evidenced. With ethnographic data from South and Southeast Asia, this chapter offers a new dimension whereby indigenous peoples become united, form their ethnic organizations, and promote development activities. It is argued that, unlike orthodox development initiatives imposed and led by the state and international organizations, indigenous initiatives of promoting economic livelihood, education, and fight for social justice have potentials for alternative development modality endowed with freedom, choice, and empowerment.

Islam, M. Saiful. Pursuing Alternative Development: Indigenous People, Ethnic Organization and Agency. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. DOI: 10.1057/9781137572103.0006.

The last 40 years can be called the age of development. This epoch is coming to an end. The time is ripe to write its obituary ... the idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape.

Wolfgang Sachs (1992: 1)

The post-World War II conceptualization of development, as an ideology, an institution, and a set of practices, was believed to be a “towering lighthouse” that would guide the emerging nation-states of the world to reach their desired destinations. Over the time, however, this lighthouse appears to be mostly hazy, and “shows cracks and is starting to crumble” (Sachs 1992: 1). After almost five decades, development projects are believed to end into disillusionment, frustration, and failure. For many, development is “Eurocentric, patriarchal, and disciplining” (Mohan 1997); it is an imposition of science as power (Nandy 1988); it does not work (Kothari 1988); it has done more harm than good (Matthews 2004); and it ends up with failure, underdevelopment, poverty, and unintended consequences (Escobar 1988, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2004; Ferguson 1990; Esteva 1992; Mohan 1997; Nederveen-Pieterse 2000; Nustad 2001; Rahnema and Bawtree 1997). It is argued that the discourse and practice of development not only facilitate control and influence over the “Third World” by the “West,” but also ensure a hegemonic authority over the Third World countries by classifying them as underdeveloped and an object of intervention to be developed. The overpowering consequence of such a development discourse is that it perpetuates and expands global inequalities and capitalism through “disqualification of non-Western knowledge systems” (Escobar 1995: 13). Having seen such a predicament of post-World War II development many social scientists of recent times call for an alternative development, or even an alternative to development.

Although the proposition of alternative development discourse becomes popular in anthropology and sociology of development, particularly in the post-development literature, it seems quite naive at the outset that it does not bear any clear-cut vision of what alternative development is and how it should be achieved (Everett 1997). In most of the post-development literature there is only a mention of the call for alternative development without any further elaboration of the ways through which it could be achieved; this prompted Nederveen-Pieterse to say that alternative development is a “misnomer because no such alternatives are offered” (2000: 188). Nustad (2001) has also rightly pointed out that the question of alternative development is crucial and timely, and academic thoughts and practices must be committed to determine what post-development theorists imply when they call for “the abandonment of the whole epistemological and political field of post-war development” (Escobar 1991: 675). Evidently, besides its rhetoric proposition, neither much thought has been given nor many researches have been conducted to evaluate the possibilities and challenges of alternative development discourse. Although there are a number of impressive ethnographies that have documented the failure and unintended consequences of development, we do still lack examples of alternative development model and the ways it could be achieved. This book is therefore an attempt to provide ethnographic evidence from the global South to show the possibilities and challenges of an alternative development model in practice.

This book critically analyzes the issues of participatory development, bottom-up approach, and proposes a alternative development model to find out the ways in which a more successful, sustainable, and humane development is attained. The book demonstrates how indigenous peoples in South and Southeast Asia resist top-down and hegemonic development projects and, instead, become attracted toward negotiating and promoting development by themselves. By demonstrating the ways in which indigenous peoples of this region perceive, negotiate, and promote development, this book shows how an alternative development is possible through the grassroots indigenous organizations in the global South.

In most Asian societies, mainstream populations enjoy most of the socio-economic and political benefits, leaving indigenous peoples mostly impoverished, vulnerable, and excluded. There have been voluminous studies that show that the overall way of life of these indigenous peoples did not change much in the postcolonial periods, despite substantial efforts made by the state and various development organizations (see, e.g., Barnes, Gray and Kingsbury 1995; Ghee and Gomes 1990; Tyson 2012; Islam 2004, 2010; Alcorn and Antoinette 2000; Li 2014; Nicholas 2000; Pati and Dash 2002; Ali 1998; Adnan and Dastidar 2011). In the context of Bangladesh, the Santals is one of the 18 indigenous groups that live in the northern part of Bangladesh with high levels of poverty, lack of education, and lower living standards compared with their neighboring Bengali majority people (Ali 1998; Sultana 2002; Karim 2001; Shafie and Mahmood 2003; Islam 2003, 2005). Over the course of time, many indigenous peoples of Bangladesh have become marginalized in landholding, which is their only means of sustenance. As a consequence of their marginalization and landlessness, dependency on the lands of the mainstream Bengali people has developed, which forced these indigenous peoples to be either sharecroppers or sell their manual labor on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, discrimination and exploitation from their Bengali counterparts have become pervasive. Low wages, eviction from their khas lands (tax-free lands), stealing belongings, stigmatization, and unemployment make everyday life of these indigenous peoples miserable. Eviction from their lands and landlessness make them “nijo vume porobasi – being alien in one’s own land” (Kamal, Chakraborti and Nasrin 2001: 15).

In India, indigenous peoples are highly discriminated against and are the poorest of the poor sections of the society. They are very much exploited by the local money-lenders or mahajans and have lost most of their cultivable lands in this process (Padhy 2000). Many indigenous peoples who were settled agriculturalists were evicted from their lands, thereby making them landless laborers over a period of time. In recent times, the process of rapid industrialization, urbanization, and economic proliferation in India have necessitated extraction of natural resources through extensive logging, mining, and hydroelectric projects (Mahanti 2000). Such activities have directly impacted on the livelihoods of the indigenous peoples, forcing them to uproot, evict, and become impoverished over time (Behura 2002). Many indigenous groups are constitutionally recorded as “scheduled caste tribes” and thereby excluded from much of the state entitlements. In postcolonial India, lack of educational facilities, unemployment, social discrimination, and constrained entrepreneurial opportunities cause particular distress for these indigenous peoples (Nithya 2014).

Indonesia is one of the most culturally diverse nation-states in the global Southeast Asia with about 250 indigenous cultural groups, speaking nearly 600 languages and having diverse cultural practices. These indigenous peoples experienced stress, change, and suppression during the colonial period, which continued till the fall of Suharto. The post-Suharto regime witnessed an emergence of democratization in Indonesia giving rise to the foundation of various political parties and formation of many non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The formation of these NGOs reflect two broad categories: one group of NGOs is formed and run by the mainstream Indonesians, referred to here as “non-ethnic organizations,” whereas there are a few other organizations, which are formed and run exclusively by the indigenous peoples of Indonesia, referred to here as “ethnic organizations.” Similar to the South Asian context, these ethnic organizations of Indonesia emerged primarily in response to the failure of the state and mainstream development organizations to ameliorate the overall socio-economic and political predicaments of the indigenous peoples. Being motivated by the motto of self-development, these grassroots ethnic organizations, mostly situated in the peripheral areas, are considered to be an alternative platform through which indigenous peoples of Indonesia negotiate and promote development by themselves.

Having taken into consideration the impoverished conditions of these indigenous peoples in South and Southeast Asia, a number of non-ethnic organizations have come forward to help improve their overall quality of life. In order to promote economic, social, and political well-being, the non-ethnic organizations have launched various poverty alleviation programs, including but not limited to microcredit¹, non-formal primary education, and entrepreneurial skills. These activities are often packaged and promoted through various approaches such as self-help, sustainable development, capacity build-up, grassroots participation, and so on. Most of these non-ethnic organizations are formed and run exclusively by the dominant and mainstream sections of the population. Despite decades of intervention, however, these organizations have grossly failed to promote substantial improvements in the lives of the indigenous populations. Although claimed to be a bottom-up approach, in reality, top-down development programs have been designed and implemented in which indigenous peoples, being the expected beneficiaries of these projects, have no ownership and control. Consequently, far from seeing an improvement in their livelihoods and enjoying the benefits of overall development, these indigenous peoples have remained the poorest of the poor, socio-politically vulnerable, and excluded from much of the mainstream society and culture.

Recurrent failures of such development projects have raised critical questions about the overall intention of these non-ethnic organizations. An environment of doubt and distrust has emerged between the indigenous peoples and these organizations. They begin to resist non-ethnic organizations and have started searching for avenues where they have freedom and choice for promoting their own development activities. This has contributed to the emergence of a new phenomenon in South and Southeast Asia where indigenous groups such as the Santals in Bangladesh and the Dayaks in West Kalimantan, Indonesia have organized themselves and formed their ethnic organizations. Using such organizational platforms, these indigenous peoples resist and bypass development initiatives offered by the dominant and mainstream counterparts. They consider that their ethnic organizations provide them with ample space for promoting standards of living, strive for rights and entitlements, and fight for equitable social justice. While examining the possibility of pursuing alternative development through ethnic organizations in South and Southeast Asia, this book draws on the contribution of three ethnic organizations: Prochesta in Bangladesh, Astha Sansthan in Rajasthan, India, and the Lembaga Bela Banua Talino (LBBT), an indigenous organization formed and run by the Dayak ethnic group of West Kalimantan, Indonesia.

While focusing on these grassroots ethnic organizations and their contribution toward overall improvement of the lives of the indigenous peoples in South and Southeast Asia, this book deconstructs the hegemonic development discourse and demonstrates that indigenous peoples are not just “passive subjects” but a “powerful social actor and agency” in the development encounter. They are not just the victims of failed development disasters but active stakeholders, who negotiate, pragmatically decide, and even resist development for their own benefit. In order to examine the ways in which these ethnic organizations promote development, three areas have been purposively identified for further in-depth analysis: economic livelihood, education, and fight for social justice. The specific questions to be addressed in this book are: What roles do these ethnic organizations play in improving the lives of the indigenous people? What are the particular goals, aims, and objectives of these organizations? How do these organizations promote economic livelihood, education, and fight against social discrimination? What are the particular constraints these organizations face while negotiating and promoting development by themselves? An ethnographic analysis of the interactions between the indigenous peoples, their organizations, and the social world around them will reveal qualitative understanding of how such organizations, formed and run exclusively by the indigenous peoples, depart from the mainstream non-ethnic organizations. The book further illustrates the prospects, constraints, and politics of alternative development practice in South and Southeast Asia. This book thus challenges the dominant and hegemonic development ideology, which ethnocentrically hypothesizes that indigenous peoples are unable to better themselves, and they need external technical and managerial support for their development. By challenging this dominant ideology, this book illustrates that indigenous peoples have the ability to unite and form their grassroots organization through which they negotiate, practice, and promote development.

At this point, it is necessary that I describe some conceptual issues and scholarly debates that provide theoretical grounding for this book. The following discussion highlights some of the contested issues on indigenous peoples and development discourse, which enables readers to evaluate development from a critical point of view and activate a call for an alternative development model that is free from its Eurocentric, monopolized, and hegemonic discourse. This also highlights the nature and pervasiveness of exploitation and discrimination against indigenous peoples and the ways they fight back in restoring equality and social justice.

Development encounter: governmentality, agency, and resistance

The effects of development on indigenous people, who often lead less complex lives in the peripheries, are often devastating and destructive (Bodley 1994; Tan 1997). Thus, development issues, particularly among indigenous peoples, have been much contested. Different missionaries and many of the United Nations bodies such as UNESCO, FAO, WHO, and ILO ethnocentrically assume that indigenous peoples are socioeconomically impoverished, their subsistence is inadequate, and that they need external technical assistance to learn the “best agricultural, stock-rearing, forestry, and handicraft techniques” (Bodley 1994: 377). Postcolonial nation-states and international organizations further reinforce the integration process to bring these indigenous groups out of their impoverished conditions by integrating them into the mainstream nation-state. There are at least two different propositions, namely the realists and the idealists, about what should be done to improve the overall condition of these disadvantaged populations. The realists advocate the intervention of the state and NGOs “to help the indigenous people adjust to the inevitable changes brought by colonialism or postcolonial national integration and economic development” (Bodley 1994: 384). On the other hand, the idealists oppose any kind of state-sponsored invasion or externally executed development projects that further destroy the unique ethnic-cultural possessions. It has been argued that development projects expose indigenous peoples to outside world, thereby making them vulnerable to new diseases, loss of identity, capitalist enterprises, and even to extinction (Bodley 1994: 384). These two viewpoints have two obvious implications: if realist point of view is accepted, the ethnic minorities would disappear. On the other hand, the idealist philosophy would foster indigenous self-determination that would make cultural survival possible, but they may be left out of development and may remain in further poverty and impoverishment.

The realist perspective of adjustment and integration remained dominant in the first half of the twentieth century. However, after World War II there had been a change in attitude and the rise of human rights concerns, especially fostered by the UN bodies and the ILO convention, which declared that “indigenous peoples themselves could develop their own formal political organizations and promote their own idealist perspective” (Bodley 1994: 384). It is envisaged that indigenous groups, through their own organization, can interact among small-scale cultures, the larger state, and the global forces around them (Bodley 1994: 385). Having said this, it is also important to explore if indigenous peoples, who often experience enduring discrimination and exploitation, can form and run an organization for negotiating and promoting the overall development by themselves. Bearing this in mind, this book explores how indigenous peoples in Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia form and run their own organization and “swim against the current.” Swimming against the current is used here metaphorically to reflect the difficulties and constraints that indigenous peoples encounter while promoting development on their own.

Apart from these above issues, there is still a debate in anthropology as to what the relation of anthropology to development shall be. Gow (2002) argues that development anthropology is a moral project based on strong ethical principles. It is argued that the engagement of development anthropologists to change others’ lives for the better is justified from an ethical point of view (Gow 2002: 299). Grillo (1997) mentions that there are different actors in development processes, such as the community people, the state, political leaders, economic elites, and national and international organizations, which make anthropology of development both multi-vocal and multi-sited. Development in this perspective is much more complex than that discussed by Gow. In the context of South and Southeast Asia, there have been different actors, including indigenous peoples, NGOs, the state, and other international organizations, in the development process. This book, thus, explores how these different actors interact in promoting development for the impoverished and disadvantaged indigenous peoples. In Bangladesh, as in other parts of South and Southeast Asia, NGOs idealistically promote a bottom-up approach that allows sufficient room for the indigenous peoples in decision-making and participatory process, as opposed to the government policy that is quite opposite and directed toward harsh assimilative policy (Mohsin 1997a). In the context of northwestern Bangladesh, NGOs mainly implement primary education through bilingual instruction with teachers recruited from the indigenous groups so that the non-Bengali indigenous pupils feel comfortable in schooling. Government primary schools, however, operate with monolingual instruction by superimposing Bangla, the national language of the c...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Introduction: Rethinking Orthodox Development
• 2  NGOs and Development Practices
• 3  Promoting Economic Livelihood
• 4  Educating the Indigenous People
• 5  Striving for Social Justice
• 6  Ethnic Organization and Alternative Development: Possibilities and Challenges
• References
• Index