Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis article seeks to better understand political violence in Bangladesh. Analysing the case of student politics, the article enquires into the productive use of violence by student activists and leaders. It argues that student violence should not be considered as a breakdown of order or a sign of state fragility, but as a means of gaining access to party-state resources and patronage. Violence operates to mark out and maintain power relations between student groups and factions. Risk-taking and the performance of self-sacrifice are important to delineate spaces of power and broker connections to potential political patrons. While actively engaging in political violence provides legitimacy within student hierarchies, victimhood provides a powerful means of publicly displaying one's commitment to a political party. Student public authority, while violent, is closely integrated in national political-party authority structures and, as a result, is intrinsically connected to the Bangladesh party-state. While it might seem counter-intuitive, this article argues that the use of political violence helps one to gain protection from the (party-)state.

This article aims to conceptualize political relations in Bangladesh by building a descriptive model of these relations. It draws on the concept of segmentary opposition developed by Evans-Pritchard in his study of the Nuer political system and on the concept of vertical integration used in the study of both industrial relations and party structures in federal states. It is argued that the structure of political relations in Bangladesh is based on the interaction of the logic of segmentary opposition and of vertical integration under leader-based groups. The descriptive model is then applied to two cases, based on qualitative fieldwork in Dhaka and Chittagong, to further clarify the model and illustrate its use as an analytical tool.

ABSTRACTThrough the lens of the 'disappearance' of a piece of land, this article analyses land relations in a Bangladeshi bastee (slum). The author builds an understanding of the local negotiation of ownership in an area where dakhal (forceful occupation) is the main starting point for the assessment of ownership. The property regime in the bastee emerges out of a web of relationships between different landlords, strongmen, elected officials and (local and national) politicians. These relations are not only crucial for maintaining existing dakhal patterns, but also for guaranteeing land sales, negotiating and settling disputes and, in the final instance, for negotiating power relations in the bastee itself.

ABSTRACTAlthough the Naxalite (Maoist) influence in India stretches from the north of Bihar to the south of Andhra Pradesh, their impact on the political economy of the Indian countryside — and specifically the tribal livelihood economy — remains understudied. This article examines how resource access is mediated in areas where both the state and the Naxalites hold some degree of public authority, using as a case study the trade in tendu leaves, used to make beedi cigarettes. This low‐profile, lootable resource provides the single most important source of income both for the tribals in North Telangana (during the summer season), and for the Maoists. The article presents a commodity chain framework, adapted to the concerns of multiple public authorities, to throw light on the linkages both between tribal procurement and Naxalite taxation and between government and Naxalite authority. The author argues that in a situation of long‐term conflict, relatively stable joint extraction regimes can be organized, by which all parties can benefit from multiple authority over certain resources.

This article examines two conflicting narratives concerning the relationship between tribals and forests in India-narratives that have been counterpoised in India at least since colonial times. The first narrative sees tribals as the natural protectors of the forest; the second argues that tribal practices are detrimental to forest conservation. The author investigates how these two representations of Indian tribals have shaped and are still shaping legal and societal relations between tribals and forests. The author shows how these narratives are deeply embedded in Indian forest legislation and how local officials, rights activists, and tribals themselves all make selective use of the two narratives to gain or deny access to forest resources. (Crit Asian Stud/GIGA)