Vol. 7 No. 4 (2020)
Space and Culture, India

Perspective

Political Ecology in Merbeel: A Power Play Around Past and Present Wetland Resource Management

Published 2020-03-29

  • Bhaswati Das
    • ,
  • Sujit Deka

Bhaswati Das
Research Scholar

Sujit Deka
Professor & Head, Department of Geography, Bodoland University, Kokrajhar – 783370, Assam, India

Abstract

The interrelationship between human society and nature is multifarious. Indeed, interrelationship involves different power plays either in explicit or implicit forms. In different indigenous societies of the world, different actors have been influencing the natural resource management process. With time, the power plays commenced by such actors have been altering their forms with different actors at the zenith of hierarchical man-environment relationship. This research is an attempt to explore a succession of such power plays around a historically famous wetland Merbeel and its island of Upper Assam. The research methods followed here is qualitative. A participatory research approach is used to explore different local dynamics. The research shows that the wetland and its island have perceivably been under a through hegemonic control of different groups, from time to time. Due to natural resource availability, Merbeel and its island have always been in the epicentre of these hegemonic power plays. This study provides a brief explanation of this succession process of these power plays dividing it into three periods.

Keywords

Political ecology; Merbeel; jal kowar; hegemony; ecotourism

Pdf

References

  1. Alkire, S.,Foster, J. E., Seth, S., Santos, M. E., Roche, J. M., and Ballon, P. (2015).Multidimensional Poverty Measurement and Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 2. Retrieved on 05 February 2015 http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHIWP083_Ch2.pdf
  2. Allen, J. (2003). Lost Geographies of Power. RGS-IBG Book Series: Blackwell Publishing Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (pp. 127-188). London: NLB.
  3. Ansari, M. (2009). Politics of Conservation (Dissertation submitted to the University of Delhi in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Philosophy). University of Delhi.
  4. Barpujari, H. (1992). The Comprehensive History of Assam. Guwahati: Publication Board Assam.
  5. Bhattacharyya, D. (2016). Drawing a Link—Women’s Empowerment and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act: A Study Conducted in the Goalpara District, Assam. Space And Culture, India, 3(3), 21. doi: 10.20896/saci.v3i3.180 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v3i3.180
  6. Bhattacharyya, R. (2017). India Rising. Space and Culture, India, 5(1), 1. Doi: 10.20896/saci.v5i1.258 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v5i1.258
  7. Bhattacharyya, R., &Pulla, V. (2019). Prime Minister Modi Returns, 2019: New Governance Agenda. Space and Culture, India, 7(1), 1-14. Doi: 10.20896/saci.v7i1.569 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v7i1.569
  8. Bhattacharyya, R., & Vauquline, P. (2013). A Mirage or a Rural Life Line? Analysing the impact of Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Guarantee Act on Women Beneficiaries of Assam. Space and Culture, India, 1(1), 83. doi: 10.20896/saci.v1i1.10 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v1i1.10
  9. Bryant, R. (1997). Beyond the impasse: the power of political ecology in Third World environmental research. Area, 29(1), 5-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4762.1997.tb00003.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.1997.tb00003.x
  10. Bryant, R., & Bailey, S. (1997). Third World Political Ecology. London: Routledge.
  11. Coria, J., & Calfucura, E. (2012). Ecotourism and the Development of Indigenous Communities: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Ecological Economics, 73, 47-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.10.024
  12. Dirks, N. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India (1st ed., p. 9). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  13. Dyson, J. (2008). Harvesting Identities: Youth, Work, and Gender in the Indian Himalayas. Annals Of The Association Of American Geographers, 98(1), 160-179. doi: 10.1080/00045600701734554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00045600701734554
  14. Dyson, J. (2014). Working Childhoods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415706
  15. Foucault, M. (2001). Truth and Power. In V. Leitch, The Notion Anthology of Theory and Criticism (pp. 1667-1670). New York: W.W.Norton.
  16. Giri, S. (2003). Sifting Through The Ecology Debate: Labour and the Production of Nature (Ph.D Thesis). Jawaharlal Nehru University.
  17. Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., & Nowell-Smith, G. (2008). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.
  18. Hancock, B., Ockleford, E., & Windridge, K. (2007). An Introduction to Qualitative Research [Ebook]. The NIHR RDS EM/ YH. Retrieved on 10 January 2018 from, http://www.rds-yh.nihr.ac.uk
  19. Handique, R. (2004). British Forest Policy in Assam. New Delhi: Concept Publ.
  20. Haviland, W., Prins, H., McBride, B., & Walrath, D. (2008). Cultural Anthropology the Human Challenge (13th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  21. Jewitt, S. (2008). Political Ecology of Jharkhand Conflicts. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 49(1), 68-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00361.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00361.x
  22. Karlsson, B. (2015). Political Ecology: Anthropological Perspectives. In J. Wright, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 350-355). Oxford: Elsevier.
  23. Kashyap, S. (2010). Discovering Sasoni. Indian Express. Retrieved on 10 January 2018 from, http://archive.indianexpress.com
  24. Khan, M. (2013). Theoretical Frameworks in Political Ecology and Participatory Nature/Forest Conservation: The Necessity for a Heterodox Approach and the Critical Moment. Journal Of Political Ecology, 20(1), 460. doi: 10.2458/v20i1.21757 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2458/v20i1.21757
  25. Leff, E. (2015). Political Ecology: a Latin American Perspective. Desenvolvimento E Meio Ambiente, 35, 29-64. doi: 10.5380/dma.v35i0.44381 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v35i0.44381
  26. Mahanta, M. (1965). Shri Shri Ramdeb Charitra (pp. 132-133). Sibsagar: Mihir Chandra Mahanta.
  27. Mann, G. (2009). Should political ecology be Marxist? A case for Gramsci’s historical materialism. Geoforum, 40(3), 335-344. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.12.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.12.004
  28. Myers, G. (1998). Intellectual of Empire: Eric Dutton and Hegemony in British Africa. Annals of The Association Of American Geographers, 88(1), 1-27. doi: 10.1111/1467-8306.00082 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00082
  29. Omonijo, D., Uche, O., Nnedum, O., & Chine, B. (2016). Religion as the Opium of the Masses: A Study of the Contemporary Relevance of Karl Marx. Asian Research Journal Of Arts & Social Sciences, 1(3), 1-7. doi: 10.9734/arjass/2016/28326 DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/ARJASS/2016/28326
  30. Pulla, V. (2017). Gramscian ‘Counter hegemony’ in Narendra Modi’s New India Perspective. Space and Culture, India, 4(3), 1-6. Doi: 10.20896/saci.v4i3.247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v4i3.247
  31. Sahariah, D., Singha, K., Bora, D., Kundu, S., Das, T., & Sen, S. et al. (2013). Majuli at the Crossroads: A Study of Cultural Geomorphology. Space and Culture, India, 1(2), 12-20. doi: 10.20896/saci.v1i2.26 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v1i2.26
  32. Sarma, D. (2016). Reading Syed Abdul Malik’s Dhanya Nara Tanu Bhal and Rudrani Sarma’s Lauhitya Tirar Amrit Gatha in the light of Assamese Vaishnavite Hagiography. Space and Culture, India, 4(2), 39-44. doi: 10.20896/saci.v4i2.222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v4i2.222
  33. Sharma, P., & Singh, A. (2016). Changing Notions of “Ideal” Monkhood: A Case Study from a Satra of Majuli. Space And Culture, India, 4(2), 29-38. doi: 10.20896/saci.v4i2.199 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v4i2.199
  34. Sharma, R., McGREGOR, M., & Blyth, J. (1991). The Socio-Economic Evaluation of Social Forestry in Orissa, India. International Tree Crops Journal, 7(1-2), 41-56. doi: 10.1080/01435698.1991.9752901 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01435698.1991.9752901
  35. Singh, S. (2014). Women, Environment and Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Khul Gad Micro Watershed of Kumoun Himalaya. Space and Culture, India, 1(3), 53-64. doi: 10.20896/saci.v1i3.45 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v1i3.45
  36. Singh, S. B. (2015). Women as Milieu Managers in Integrated Watershed Management: Perspectives from the Hilly Areas of Uttarakhand. Space and Culture, India, 2(4), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v2i4.130 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v2i4.130
  37. Stoddart, M. (2007). Ideology, Hegemony, Discourse: A Critical Review of Theories of Knowledge and Power. Social Thought And Research, 191-225. doi: 10.17161/str.1808.5226 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17161/STR.1808.5226
  38. Svarstad, H., Benjaminsen, T., &Overå, R. (2018). Power theories in political ecology. Journal of Political Ecology, 25(1), 351-363. Doi: 10.2458/v25i1.23044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.23044
  39. The Paris Agreement, United Nations Climate Change. Retrieved on 09 January 2020 from, https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
  40. Young, I. (2004). Modest Reflections on Hegemony and Global Democracy. Theoria, 51(103), 1-14. doi: 10.3167/004058104782267277 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3167/004058104782267277

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.