Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Tables -- Figures -- Abbreviations -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Mining Conflicts in Liberalising India -- 2. Adivasi Land Rights and Dispossession -- 3. The Formation of a Public-Private Alliance -- 4. Livelihoods at the Two Sites -- 5. Government Mediation or Facilitation? -- 6. Oppositional Noise from the Fringes -- 7. Habermas's Nightmare? -- 8. Conclusion -- References

Landlock: Paralysing Dispute over Minerals on Adivasi Land in India explores the ways in which political controversy over a bauxite mining and refining project on constitutionally protected tribal lands in Andhra Pradesh descended into a state of paralysis where no productive outcome was possible. Long-running support for Adivasi (or tribal) land rights motivated a wide range of actors to block the project's implementation by recourse to India's dispersed institutional landscape, while project proponents proved adept in proposing workarounds to prevent its outright cancellation. In the ensuing deadlock, the project was unable to move towards completion, while marginalised Adivasi groups were equally unable to repossess their land. Such a 'landlock' is argued to be characteristic of India's wider inability to deal with conflicts over land matters, despite the crucial importance of land for smallholder livelihoods and various economic processes in an intensely growth-focused country. The result has been frequent yet grindingly slow processes of contestation in which powerful business and state interests are, at times, halted in their tracks, but mostly seem able to slowly exhaust local resistance in their pursuit of large-scale projects that produce no benefits for the rural poor.

Landlock: Paralysing Dispute over Minerals on Adivasi Land in India explores the ways in which political controversy over a bauxite mining and refining project on constitutionally protected tribal lands in Andhra Pradesh descended into a state of paralysis where no productive outcome was possible. Long-running support for Adivasi (or tribal) land rights motivated a wide range of actors to block the project's implementation by recourse to India's dispersed institutional landscape, while project proponents proved adept in proposing workarounds to prevent its outright cancellation. In the ensuing deadlock, the project was unable to move towards completion, while marginalised Adivasi groups were equally unable to repossess their land. Such a 'landlock' is argued to be characteristic of India's wider inability to deal with conflicts over land matters, despite the crucial importance of land for smallholder livelihoods and various economic processes in an intensely growth-focused country. The result has been frequent yet grindingly slow processes of contestation in which powerful business and state interests are, at times, halted in their tracks, but mostly seem able to slowly exhaust local resistance in their pursuit of large-scale projects that produce no benefits for the rural poor.

The adivasi population represents a special case in India's new land wars. Strong individual and community rights to agricultural and forest lands have been enacted for this group based on notions of adivasi identities as primeval, but without linking these to economic and political influence. This article interrogates the adivasi land question seen through a caste lens. It does so via case studies in two states to understand the ways in which adivasi identity can be mobilised for its instrumental value and used to demand land rights. In Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court's Samatha Judgement has prevented virtually all private mining activities. In Jharkhand, however, similar legislation is seen to be trumped by the national Coal Bearing Areas Act, as well as by former and current land acquisition acts that allow industrial land claims to take precedence over identity-based ones. Available evidence indicates the challenges involved in bringing support for land rights that are premised on a supposedly unchanging adivasi identity when these rights go against dominant interests. This circumstance serves to highlight the possibilities present in caste analysis to understand the plight of adivasis, despite their usually distinct treatment in scholarly analyses.

The adivasi population represents a special case in India's new land wars. Strong individual and community rights to agricultural and forest lands have been enacted for this group based on notions of adivasi identities as primeval, but without linking these to economic and political influence. This article interrogates the adivasi land question seen through a caste lens. It does so via case studies in two states to understand the ways in which adivasi identity can be mobilised for its instrumental value and used to demand land rights. In Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court's Samatha Judgement has prevented virtually all private mining activities. In Jharkhand, however, similar legislation is seen to be trumped by the national Coal Bearing Areas Act, as well as by former and current land acquisition acts that allow industrial land claims to take precedence over identity-based ones. Available evidence indicates the challenges involved in bringing support for land rights that are premised on a supposedly unchanging adivasi identity when these rights go against dominant interests. This circumstance serves to highlight the possibilities present in caste analysis to understand the plight of adivasis, despite their usually distinct treatment in scholarly analyses. ; publishedVersion

There is rising interest in connecting global value chains with sites of extraction to ensure that mineral resources, wherever extracted, are governed to benefit communities. Despite commitments by policymakers and African intergovernmental bodies to governance that does not disenfranchise communities, voices of those affected remain peripheral to mining industry operations. In this article we ask how the extraction of black granite used in grand buildings in the West is experienced by mine-affected people in Zimbabwe's Mutoko District. We seek to bring forth voices of those affected by mineral extraction including its governance processes, to produce an account of mining anthropology rooted in Habermas's lifeworld concept. We show how communities continue to shoulder multiple burdens of black granite extraction without getting its rewards: Broken bridges, damaged roads, dirty air, hazardous living environments and loss of land are some of the key experiences. And the current governance regime characterised by outdated laws, dishonesty, and intimidation of the governed allows the burdens of black granite mining to perpetuate. In conclusion, we note how the marginalised lifeworld contains knowledge, capacity and experiences that must be fully accounted for in reshaping the governance of extraction for the benefit of mine-side communities.

ABSTRACTThis article explores how domestic NGOs responded to new opportunities that emerged during the 2015–2020 'modern slavery' labour reforms in Thailand's seafood sector. The analysis takes place against the background of civil society transitions in a 'post‐aid' setting. Like NGOs in other middle‐income countries, the Thai NGO sector has struggled to remain relevant and financially viable in recent decades, as international donors have withdrawn from countries with steadily declining poverty rates. As a result of the 'developmental successes' of Thailand, the NGO sector needed to rethink its strategies. Examining the modern slavery labour reform process provides an opportunity to understand the strategic choices available to NGOs in the face of several important phenomena: the emergence of new actors such as international philanthropic donors; the growing influence of the private sector in governance matters; and the need for NGOs to balance multiple strategic alliances. The article draws on in‐depth interviews to explore narratives of Thai labour NGO adjustments during the period of the modern slavery reform. The study contributes to a better understanding of how NGOs in post‐aid countries transition and adapt to changing circumstances by embracing new roles as 'sub‐contractors' for emerging global philanthropic donors and as 'partners' of private corporations.