Search

This research article examines the contest between indigenous forest-dwelling communities and settler colonial policy in post-Partition central India. According to official estimates, from 1961–71 the population of indigenous communities declined by nearly 50% in Dandakaranya within central India even as overall the population grew by a large margin during the same period. Despite perceptions of India as a post-colony committed to decolonization, this article examines how this state project, one of the earliest acts of governmentality, was deeply implicated in a settler colonial logic of elimination. Following the mass migration of Partition refugees in 1947 across newly demarcated borders, the Indian government earmarked Dandakaranya Forest as the site of a refugee resettlement project for lower-caste Partition refugees from East Bengal (now Bangladesh). Drawing on Lorenzo Veracini's notion of 'probationary settlers' as exogenous others without prior claims to land, refugees are understood within this argument as probationary settlers reliant on the state for their survival. Rather than narrating the biography of the state through its various experts and institutions, this paper foregrounds the perspective of the marginalized on their environment: displaced forest-dwelling indigenous communities and lower-caste (Dalit) refugees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In her book Harmony Ideology Laura Nader demonstrates that dispute resolution practices within minority ethnically distinct communities may serve not only a quasi-legal, but also a political, hegemonic, function. National governance structures and relations between the state and non-state entities provide a critical context for understanding dispute resolution practices within such communities. This paper examines how the historical legal and social 'othering' of a tribal minority, the Santal, in India and Bangladesh has created two opposing counter-hegemonic strategies, manifest in the people's dispute resolution practices. The paper begins by exploring the historical backdrop of the Santal's exclusion and subordination in the two countries. The paper then examines disputing strategies to assess how dispute processes act as a mirror reflecting back this exclusion, reforming the nuances of separation as a symbol of defiance. My fieldwork data shows that strategies of disputing are closely linked with the spatial proximity of and perceived locality of oppression. Inward looking strategies that promote harmony and re-enforce minority hegemonies act as strategies of resistance where an oppressor takes the form of a distant and untouchable state or power elite. But where the politics of struggle is local and immediate disputing turns outward and confrontation replaces harmony as a counter-hegemonic strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]