From fear to policy: Attitudinal shifts in the perception and dealings with Indigenous Andaman Islanders, M Chandi

Tags: Andaman Islanders, livelihood, development, colonization, Andaman Islands, communities, Great Andamanese, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, fear, existence, knowledge and understanding, social evaluations, plural society, economic development, understanding, tribal communities, Anthropological Survey of India, equitable development, Indian Express, Government Press, ideological differences, Nicobar Islands, American Anthropological Association, Andamans, political discourse, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation, ecological conservation, Andamanese, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration, welfare activities, Union of India, indigenous group, Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Environmental Team, Islands, Middle Andaman Island, South Andaman, Andaman Islander, Shyamali Ganguli, Public Interest Litigation, British colonizers, Indigenous communities, sustainable development, ethnic divisions, primitivism, Andaman Homes, Calcutta High court, tribal divisions, Administration, Peaceful Coexistence
Content: From fear to policy: Attitudinal shifts in the perception and dealings with Indigenous Andaman Islanders.1 Manish Chandi2 Abstract.The quest to evolve a feasible policy on future courses of action involving indigenous Islanders is laudable given the precarious situation many of them exist within the confines of the Global Economy that most of them are unaware of. A look at the changing modes of behaviour through the eyes of colonisers, settlers, indigenes gives rise to questions and concerns. These need to be addressed at a policy level and perhaps more importantly implemented to address those concerns. The remaining groups of indigenous Islanders face different futures given their locales, policies and differences in lifestyle. The colonisation of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands has brought about this dramatic shift in the future of these indigenous people, with a questionable future on the one hand for some and progressive assimilation on the other. One of the clear fallouts of colonisation is both a racial divide and a deplorable lack of understanding of the indigenous people. This paper attempts to bring about this corpus of information from a variety of sources including some fieldwork into perspective. s Imagined, experienced and anecdotal fear. My introduction to the Islands and the Andaman Islanders occurred while I spent my formative months between 1995-1996 with the NGO I work with. I was fortunate to live with a library shelved with books in my new accommodation as a termite problem in the premises forced its transfer to my hut. This let me explore written accounts from various sources and enriched my appreciation and curiosity for the mysteries of these Islands. A few months later I was amongst a group of researchers sailing over to Middle Andaman from Wandoor in South Andaman by a local dinghy overnight in January 1996. We set sail by late afternoon and anchored for the night close to Flat Island off the western shore of Middle Andaman Island. We spotted a campfire in the darkness of the Island as a silhouette and were anchored about a kilometer off shore in the safety of distance. Stories, colleagues and I were fed on being inquisitive to the Islands and their treasures, of mean Jarawas creeping on locals at the dead of night came immediately to mind and this was stoked by all the incidents recorded by that meticulous officer of the British regime in the Islands, M.V. Portman whose account I had opportunity to pour over at my convenience. All we could see was the occasional silhouette of legs moving in front of the fire. This was enough for us to talk ourselves to half sleep the night. The next morning before we left as the sun rose we saw no sign of the fire or camp of Jarawas ­ they had gone their way leaving us to figure out the animated talk of the night before. This is contrasted by fear experienced. Munna (a resident of Maymyo village South Andaman) recounted his experience to me when he joined a group of villagers to poach edible Swiftlet nests from the Jarawa reserve some decades ago; after they had landed he had gone to the forest to relieve himself. When he returned he saw the dinghy he had 1 Paper presented at a session titled `Indigenous Futures: The Andaman Islanders in the 21st Century', at the -International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) Inter Congress, 12-15th December 2004, University of Calcutta, India. 2 Research Associate, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Environmental Team; A division of the Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, Centre for Herpetology, Post Bag No: 4, Mamallapuram Tamil Nadu 603104. India. Email Correspondence- [email protected] 1
arrived in surrounded by Jarawas and all of his mates killed by their arrows. He immediately ran into the thick jungle and stripped himself of his clothes and spent the day on a tree. At night he would slink to the coast and try to wind his way back toward the Tirur Bush Police outpost no: 4 along the coast. It took him two days to do this, eventually recounting this story in full for a local radio program. s A comic allegory of fear unlike Conan Doyle's use of an Andaman `savage' with poison tipped arrows in the `The Sign of Four', is this story which once did the rounds in Port Blair that featured an Andaman Islander in a lighter vein. This takes places in the early 70's when the Island experience of isolation for many was a difficult existence devoid of the many comforts present there today. The story narrated (Kariyal 1976) is as follows: Dreaming of wonders on the mainland, three boys in Port Blair got hold of a can of milk, a rare commodity in the early days since the penal settlement. They made a nice pudding of rice & milk but did not want to share it as each wanted the largest share; they then agreed that whoever had the wildest / most fantastic dream would get the largest share of the pudding. The first boy dreamt of a fantastic joy ride on an aircraft from Port Blair to Calcutta and of having spent a wonderful night out at the city. The second boy had a similar dream, only that the plane took him further to the ultimate destination of a big city - New Delhi! They then asked the third boy for his dream. He nervously told them that the previous night as he was trying to induce a nice dream he heard a noise and woke up. He saw a Jarawa upon him with a drawn bow threatening to kill him unless he drank up all the kheer- that he was forced to do, as he had no alternative but to obey. There have been numerous occasions for discussion on the topic of Jarawas and other Andaman tribes, from ubiquitous `tea shop' conversations of some `Jarawa incident' or even when traveling on the ATR, to forums like this where issues concerning ethnic and indigenous futures are discussed and debated. The Onge & the Great Andamanese seem to have vanished into oblivious solitude in discourse on indigenous people by the lay public. Once assimilated into mainstream society the `exotic tribal' becomes a commoner and the value added to the `ethnic' tag reduces or ceases to exist. From being exalted as those in need of change and assimilation or even protection- a turnaround occurs after a semblance to `normality' in lifestyle emerges. After this stage the group is left to fend for itself or is far gone in the maze to recover their former identity. This is sadly one of the outcomes of intensive interference in somebody else's' affairs. Such efforts are started with great zeal but lack focus, direction and strategy and ultimately become a game that got boring. It is quite disheartening to hear of pessimistic approaches to the changing destinies of the Jarawa after recent events have changed formerly quotidian behaviour of the Jarawa and colonists. Resignation, by claiming that they will ultimately reach the stage the Onge & Great Andamanese have come to, is the lack of imagination to think and act differently. Over the past eight years I have had occasion to hear and witness stories of fantasy and real events relating to the indigenous Islanders; these invariably are set in a background of primitive humans as protagonists ­ the notion of poverty of both technological and material resources and of inability to make decisions for future courses of development. This forms the most common notion of the Andaman Islanders within the context of the 2
notion of primitivism- a notion which in all probability saw the creation of writ petition No: 048/1999, a Public Interest Litigation filed by Shyamali Ganguli Vs the Union of India & others, in the Calcutta High court demanding the relocation and rendition of increased welfare activities by the Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration for the indigenous group of `Jarawas'. This PIL has escalated the debate on the indigenous Islanders, their future, development & progress, welfare activities to be carried out for them and a host of issues laying bare wounds and bodies of thought for introspection at many forums. At the center of these discussions are the indigenous Islanders who have not joined the uproar of voices pressing for their demands but carrying on with immediate issues of livelihood within their world. This is not just a visualized image of indigenous Islanders carrying on with their lives while others shout hoarse, but a situation marked out by defining decisions being taken on behalf of the `other', pursuing various ideals in a spectrum of view points designed to sort out issues concerning us about the `other'. The gravity of this situation lies in the fact that the small existing populations of indigenous Islanders are overrun in their own territory by the whims and fancies of ourselves-who constitute the other `other' in this process of Island colonization and development. It is very tempting to think of the situation, as the survival of the fittest; but fortunately in the many years of global thinking on such issues, the possible complicity in genocide and insensitivity are notions that we in a democratic multi ethnic society do not want to cast on ourselves as a load of even more guilt. Putting other issues aside for the time being I would like to present some thoughts, which may be useful toward enabling equitable opportunity to the indigenous Islanders, take control of their destinies. Recreating Policy. I will not go into details of colonial history in the Andaman Islands, but would like to categorize periods over the last century when most indigenous Islander's destinies have been directed by colonizers through policy, action and inaction. Even though at times there doesn't seem to be much difference from policies and actions carried out more than a century ago to the present day it would be useful to arrange these divisions however slight, through time. After successful colonization beyond 1858, British colonizers were intent on creating an atmosphere conducive to the nascent penal colony. This included establishing and maintaining friendly relations with the tribes and bringing those hostile to the settlement within the ambit of their control even if it warranted punitive action. From 1858 till 1942the Islands were administered by the British and briefly during World War II by the Japanese. The worst consequences were felt by the Great Andamanese with the establishment of friendly relations at the cost of the larger community which constituted their tribal divisions which made M.V. Portman (1899) and A.R.R.Brown (1922) acknowledge and record the demise and slow but sure extinctions of the different septs/clans that constituted tribal sub divisions known in the past. This period is marked by the establishment of friendly relations amongst the Great Andamanese tribes, through conciliation, reprisal and the creation of settlements then called Andaman Homes. This is in contrast to the many years during which the Andaman Islanders were considered to be anthropophagi from sailor's tales. This period was also marked by global realizations of 3
the concepts of `race' and growth of various aspects in Anthropological studies (Caspari, 2003). Renaissance perceptions of difference had been religious rather than racial or national. A significant change was taking place in the way native inhabitants of new worlds came to be understood and described. Cannibalism and primitivism shared the notions of the exotic and pagan (Lindenbaum 2004), and humans categorized as such fell into the lowest realms of social stratification. After India became independent this British colony became an Indian colony with change in ethnic identity that administered the Islands. Whereas earlier a high ranking officer was appointed to look into the welfare and administration of indigenous Islanders during the British regime, a whole department was set up with the purpose of administering tribal welfare; also the ANPATR 1956 marks the recognition of a need to formalize the inclusion of a separate category of political administration in aboriginal /indigenous affairs in the larger Island development perspective. This notification has most importantly given due recognition to the ownership and need to regulate land and territorial distribution amongst the indigenous Islanders of both the Andaman & Nicobar groups of Islands. In this process the administration of welfare/ altruistic development programs were expanded to a larger geared wheel of cogs in an implementation mechanism. Moreover the Islands were the setting for increased colonization and rehabilitation schemes after independence and wars with neighbours in the subcontinent that saw an influx of refugees and others. The Andamans were planned to be a productive and self-sufficient colony in the future for which agriculture and small-scale industry needed to be developed. The revenue being earned through exploitation of timber and construction of the Andaman Trunk Road in the forests also saw the denotification in 1977 of some regions that was declared to be a `Reserved' territory for the Jarawa. It is only recently after about 27 years since that denotification, the present Administration has though it fit to re-declare those regions as belonging to Jarawa territorial space on the Islands. This indeed is a positive step giving due consideration to Indigenous Islanders. This period from 1948-1970's was marked not only by the promulgation of the ANPATR of 1956 but also the colonization of Little Andaman Island, the home for Onge who were dwindling in number after establishing passive contact. This was also a period of arbitrariness when it came to the last remaining descendants of the Great Andamanese who before they were collectively rehabilitated on Strait Island were lost in the new growing colony, living detached from their forest, at the edge of complete extinction and on the fringes of urban and rural society in new settlements (A.K.Ghosh 1951). Tribal assimilation (with the Onge & remaining Great Andamanese) was still being experimented with and at the same time separation by marginalisation in settlements reminiscent of the Andaman Homes, and through the use of units of Bush Police outposts to protect the new settlements from fearful attacks of the Jarawa. It is often misrepresented that the British period was one when the most punitive and repressive actions and ideologies on the indigenous Islanders were effected. An article by Mr Chengappa, then the Chief Conservator of Forests in the Islands reveals that the ideologies were no different from those envisaged during the British period (Portman 1899, Temple 1925, Bonnington 1931, Chengappa 1958). These involved befriending the Islanders with gifts, overwhelming their camps, capturing persons and `taming' them before sending them back in to the forest as emissaries, to a suggestion by Mr. 4
Chengappa to "tear gas or laugh gas" a camp to ease the method of capture of "wild and hostile jungle tribes" like the Jarawa. This last suggestion however did not occur but goes to show that colonists of the Andaman Islands irrespective of ethnic identity were eager to solve the problem of Jarawa hostility and resistance by any means at their disposal so as to maximize on the possibilities of development of their new colony. Ever since `friendly' contact was thought to have been established in 1974 the gift giving missions became a spectacle to be observed by those in power as one in which the ferocious Jarawa were being given the fruits of civilization of another society and a few more `brownie points' could be thought to have been scored in this venture of `contact missions' for tribal welfare. This carried on despite several protests by many wellmeaning people who had either experienced or were aware of possible consequences. A perusal through the incidents of Jarawa attacks and encounters from the Bush Police records from 1946-19983 show the increase in confrontation and acts of sourcing those very items gifted by the contact mission parties to the Jarawa (also in Pandya 1999). These steps meant to reduce confrontation and conflict unwittingly created venues and opportunities for increased contact and confrontation between settlers and the Jarawa. Even so, the Government was steadfast in its policy of assimilation blind to the cost and never paid heed to the many expert committee's reports on the `Jarawa problem' and even to suggestions by Anthropologists and others of that time aware of these issues. The process of assimilation to avoid the creation of a human zoo went about by developing a system of a Tribal tour program, like a boat excursion into the unknown from time to time until the end of the last century. During this period the foundation for the Andaman Trunk Road, a contentious construct in the discourse on Jarawa future, the successful construction of which has seen a change in territorial control over the region categorized as a tribal reserve. Here again despite the many expert committees constituted to review conservation of biodiversity, ecology and the indigenous tribes of the Islands such as the Jarawa, recommendations (McVean 1976, Whitaker 1985, Whitaker, R. & Whitaker, Z. 1984, & expert committee reports mentioned in Sarkar 1990) were never implemented for the purpose they were set up. I would categorize this period as one of prevarication and stubborn refusal to accept reason and rationale; and also the spread of ignorance due to `hidden secrets' and imagined fears4 creating an ever-widening gulf between the settler and indigenous communities, especially with the Jarawa. The exclusivity of `Jarawa contact' had created a vacuum in the general knowledge of most settlers of whom they shared the Islands with. This was and is a serious flaw in tribal policy. This lack of communication skills and perception of the Islanders has continued in spite of `contact' and altruistic welfare measures being promoted without sensible direction, leave alone destination. Experimentation through schemes drawn out at different offices, exploitation and indifference by field level welfare workers and others `on duty' at tribal settlements such as Dugong Creek, South Bay, Strait Island and 27 Km Shompen Ashram only saw 3 Bush Police crime records, Office of the Superintendent of Police Port Blair; some incidents are recorded in Mukhopadyay, K. et all. 2002. Jarawa Contact: Ours with Them Theirs with Us. Annexure 2. Some major incidents of conflict. Publ. By the Director Anthropological Survey of India, Kolktta. 4 There were erroneous notions of their arrows being poisoned by saliva, which was poisonous due to the non-consumption of salt and chilly, Jarawa bones being useful for black magic and other fantasies prevalent amongst many settlers (personal discussions at the AnSI office, Port Blair). 5
the strengthening of control and dominance over Indigenous Islanders. Such lack of effective communication continued from the time the ANPATR was instituted5, through the 1970's contact missions (Singh, R 1976; Sarkar, J. 1990) up to the late 1990's when a great confusion of assumptions of food scarcity actively sought alleviation through increased number of food / gift dropping missions and attempts at creating banana and coconut plantations within the Jarawa Reserve to augment food supplies. The plantation owners and food suppliers at Tirur and Kadamtala were the major beneficiaries of such missions. Despite about twenty years of contact, effective communication was absent in spite of the `contact missions'. The last remaining period I will categorize begins from 1998 to the present. This period saw the capture and `taming' of Enmay6, and him being sent out as an emissary after being treated for a leg injury with extended hospitality and modernity at Port Blair. This is also marked by the writ petition No: 048/1999, a PIL filed by Shyamali Ganguli Vs the Union of India & others, in the Calcutta High court; its subsequent hearing and judgments of the honorable High court that asked for ecological security and indigenous identity to be rethought and explored in a different light from previous decades of experimentation. This also saw a period of confusion and hackles being raised between well-meaning persons, NGO's the business community and others in confrontation with the Andaman Administration and the High Court especially in the event of closure of the Andaman Trunk Road. The emergence of the Jarawa in large numbers at various locations gave rise to a perceived local theory of food scarcity with gesticulation and demand for food articles by the Jarawa, but soon it was realized that this behaviour was in all probability related to the curiosity surrounding Enmay's first visit to Port Blair and curiosity and the use of a foraging strategy being articulated by the Jarawa. In retrospect it was a very chaotic situation riddled with a variety of theories and authorities being hapless observers attempting to reduce the visibility of and contact of the public with the Jarawa. Added to this the spread of measles and hospitalization of Jarawa patients brought home the fact that here was a situation finally spiraling out of control. This was a point when it finally dawned on many people that the handling of tribal affairs by the non-Jarawa community was in a mess. It also signaled the end of exclusivity of Jarawa visibility and an increase in cynosure and scrutiny by interest groups. Chronological transition in the Nicobar Islands is not the same as experienced in the Andaman Islands. The experiences there of plurality and a society able to continue on their own terms in comparison to the Andamans has seen development and growth along with a sense of belonging and need to control their own space and economy7. What is evident in this string of chronological events are (a) the lack of proper direction given existing knowledge of past misadventures in the Islands and in other regions across the globe;(b) the perceived need for and application of inappropriate welfare measures, 5 See Chengappa 1958 pg 112, on Mr. Bonnington's cruise around the Nicobar Islands accompanying three Onges. 6 Enmay, a (then) young Jarawa who was captured near Kadamtala village during a Jarawa `raid' on plantations in 1996. 7 See writ petition No: 110 of 2002 in the High Court of Calcutta, by Rasheed Yususf in Singh, S. 2003. 6
and (c) the exclusivity of knowledge and understanding of indigenous people in the Islands. Another dimension also present but slow to be acknowledged are ethnic divisions, racist hierarchies, and condescension of a different lifestyle. From those earlier days when there were divisions of Indians, Andamanese, British or Japanese, today the divisions that are slowly but surely creeping up are those of ethnic divisions prevalent on the mainland that seek power and control in modern Andaman society. This is probably the most unfortunate side of developments that are being passed on to the once singular, secular and plural society that constituted the Andaman Islands in the past. These divisions are unlike the `peaceful coexistence' sometimes portrayed (Kailash 2000). Peaceful coexistence is often viewed from the dominant majority's point of view considering only identities they recognize as belonging to their `civil' society. Such evaluations do not even consider what sort and if equitable coexistence even exists between indigenous and settler communities in the Islands. This is often the case with the small number of indigenes relegated to imaginations and fringes in social evaluations like the latter. Through the same tenor, expressions of patriotism and of ethnic identity as who deserves to be classified as `Indian' and as Islanders are component in discourse on this subject in the Islands keeping pace with the growing realization that by occupying space in the Islands as a registered Islander a secure future is guaranteed in the Islands. To secure this even further demands are being voiced to ensure the benefits of development/economic growth without hindrance from Tribal or Indigenous demands that seem to slow down the trickle. More recently political discourse has distinguished between Island development, ecological conservation and indigenous identity. Development is increasingly being seen as sensibilities meant for some disregarding autochthonous inheritance, control of space and livelihood. The Indigenous communities are invariably left out of the realm of this rationale and are not viewed as partners in sustainable development but are relegated to the dark, unfamiliar, and despondent terrain of `tribal welfare' in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. As entities mandatory for holistic future conceptualizations of the Island archipelagos as, a progressive Union Territory, a centre of biodiversity, and the Constitutional vision of social justice and empowerment, this separation is not conducive to sustainable growth. Despondent imagination and metaphoric representation. Ever since the Andaman Islanders were considered anthropophagi centuries ago, prejudiced views of the Islanders have continued to the present. Curiosity levels of people around the world toward the Andaman Islanders have only increased but not conceded them a legitimate and dignified future existence. Accounts in a variety of books, articles and newspapers are testament to this fact of the `exotic' in their very being. There has also been an increasing lament of their possible modes of future existence given the policies being pursued by the Government of India from the 1970's to the present. At the same time there also exist notions of benefits accrued through welfare measures, their antiquity and fragility of their future existence; such special status is bereft of meaning when the very ethos of their being is eroded through wanton interference from the outside. 7
While going through many articles from books, magazines and studies on the indigenous Andaman Islanders one will be amazed (unless inured) at the number of occasions people over many decades have questioned those policies and the stubbornness with which they were followed and thwarted time and again by successive administrators in the Islands at the cost of indigenous livelihood and identity. This unfortunately is what the Onge and Great Andamanese experience has been and one of the main causes for their present predicament. In essence it is an attempt at transformation of stereotypes of primitivism, and being tribal, into a process of submissive dependence and alienation. Unless this is amended even the Jarawa could possibly fall into this category of experience. Recent events have probably for the first time provided scope for change in Tribal policy in comparison to the gift-giving contact missions of the recent past. One of the overriding causes for the actions of the past on the part of colonizers are themes and metaphors of primitivism, weakness (Venkateswar 2004) and the superiority of ones own world within polemic notions of civilized and uncivilized. If one goes through interstices and chronology of indigenous affairs and their administration ever since colonization it is clear that tribal policy advocates the need for intervention and change based on notions of civility and assimilation into a larger mainstream. This is often pursued and advocated with missionary zeal to the extent that bureaucratic mechanisms of altruism within which such schemes fall in line with are unfortunately riddled with a lack of accountability and a sense of alienation from its very purpose. In this scenario a destination through this scheme is absent. At the root of such behaviour exhibited by non-Andamanese is a deep-rooted sense of hierarchy, divisions based on the kind of lifestyle and `race' that the Andamanese are categorized into. Indigenous Andaman Islanders, like many hunter-gatherer populations have suffered at the hands of dominant societies for continuing to pursue a lifestyle conducive to their immediate and pressing environment. These sensibilities within discourse in the Andamans amongst settled communities on tribal development has sought to alleviate the perceived `poor' condition such people choose to live; in comparison to a `modern world' they are part of. The activity of hunting and gathering for livelihood associated with human lifestyle strategies of ancient times is riddled with metaphors of primitivism and establishes a connection to objects mental and physical that are alien to present day lifestyle strategies. These invariably are a collation of disconnected observations that are connected by any lay observer in an attempt to decipher such a choice of livelihood. From these notions grows the perceived need for economic change and tribal welfare to alleviate those in such or similar states of existence into what is conditioned as Civil Society. As mentioned a little earlier, distinction has been created between welfare for those of a tribal fraternity and that of larger human society. Primitivism and poverty are two overriding metaphors in such a distinction that I would like to highlight as those that dictate the purpose and method of tribal welfare as is being conducted in the Andamans & Nicobars. An inability to recognize at least in policy that beneficiaries of such schemes have different methods of evaluating what constitutes welfare, that are not articulated invariably due to a lack of effective communication and decisions being taken for them without consultation of what constitute their ideology of needs. An interesting 8
observation in this regard is a `happiness index' (Jhunjhunwala, 2004). Happiness and satisfaction are unquestionable objectives of Economic Development and welfare; however conventional indices of economic development often belie this notion. Even though such an index isn't in use it is worthwhile to ponder issues of welfare & tribal development in this light. It is beyond doubt in this day and age that dependence by tribal communities on their immediate surroundings is paramount to their mode of existence. Invariably, tribal welfare through altruism ensures that by severing these chords, a transformed dependence through assimilation is created that ensures its own survival and growth at the cost of what constituted the tribe in the first instance. At its very heart tribal welfare is meant to bring about equitable relationships between the `tribal' and the `other'. In the Andaman Islands as recorded of the Onge, the forest with its myriad sources of myth, food and places (Pandya 1993) is being overrun by the exploitation of the forest by non-Onge. Here it is visible that what the Onge lived with for centuries, had to be given up for exploitation by others; in return welfare has sought to ensure a different lifestyle not in consonance with nature. Forests in the Andamans were a prime motivation, apart for the penal settlement and to stem piracy, to colonize the region. The exit and placation of indigenous Islanders ensured an entry for the exploitation of this wealth. Biodiversity Conservation, which is an unspoken tenet of forest dwellers, is an outspoken metaphor for the Government and nongovernmental fraternity in the Islands. What are considered to be reciprocal privileges of assimilation is rhetorical and hasn't been realized ever since colonization of the Andaman Islands occurred. Conclusion. What I have primarily tried to portray is that interference in indigenous affairs has not had positive effect in ensuring better futures for the Islands indigenes. At the heart of this problem is: (a) Non concurrence of developmental ideologies between implementers and beneficiaries of `welfare'. Thus ideologies and cultural differences remain incoherent as long as dialogue and understanding is absent. Once group interest is understood and becomes a two way process it could translate toward common benefit. (b) Secondly, the polarization of ethnic differences through perceptions of developed and underdeveloped human beings is the cause for the gulf between resident communities on the Islands. It is imperative to acknowledge that the diversity of livelihood systems in the Andamans and Nicobars is what makes it the mosaic it is today. Monocultures in our minds have to be perceptive to such idealism when inducement of developmental change occurs through predesignated occupations or qualifications as indices of development. This calls for increasing ways of understanding indigenous culture on the Islands, by removing existing prejudiced views. (c) Biodiversity conservation is an insurance of economic security for the islanders and the Tribal protected areas are the largest repositories of biological wealth. The partitioning of space as it exists today as protected, reserved and other categories of classification has to ensure the conservation of resources that form the basis for foraging lifestyles of indigenous Islanders both in the Andamans and Nicobars. This has to move from rhetoric to implementation by the concerned agencies. 9
(d) In conclusion it should be remembered that the perceived need for change is usually one sided; being sensitive to ideological differences is paramount for equitable development. Tribal Policy has largely evolved from a perceived failure of existing tribal social systems that deserve change. Collective decision-making and experimentation in this regard should remember that at stake are a people whose ethos and identity we've barely begun to understand. References. · Andaman & Nicobar Islands Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation 1956. Government Press, Port Blair. · Bonnington, MCC. 1931. With the Aborigines of the Andamans. Indian forester June 1931, 264-267; · Caspari, R 2003. From types to populations: A Century of Race, Physical Anthropology, and the American Anthropological Association. American Anthropologist, Vol. 105, No. 1. · Chengappa, B.S. 1958. In the land of the hostile Jarawas and other wild tribes of the Andaman Islands. Indian Forester, February 1958, 108-120; March 1958 169187. · Ghosh, A.K 1951. Census of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Manager of publications, N.Delhi · Jhunjhunwala, B. 2004.What is development ?. Indian Express, Chennai edition, October 22. · Kailash, 2000. Peaceful Coexistence: Lessons from the Andamans. Economic & Political Weekly. Aug 5th 2000. pp 2859-2865. · Kariyal, S. 1976. `Our' ignorance and `their' sense of humour. Yojana Vol XX/13 pg 52, 15 Aug, Dir Publ div Patiala house New Delhi. · Lindenbaum, S. 2004. Thinking about Cannibalism. Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 33: 475-498. New York. For a recent debate see Kothamasi, D. & Babu, S. 2004. Primitive Jarawa's or primitive scientific ethics. Correspondence to the editor. Curr. Sci Vol. 86, No.7. 10 April 2004. India; & a response to this letter by Partha Majumdar & Sehgal, S.C. ISI, Kolkotta, in the same issue · McVean, D.N. 1976. Report on Land Use in the A&N Islands. IUCN. Govt: of India. Morges, Switzerland · Mukhopadyay, K. et all. 2002. Jarawa Contact: Ours with Them Theirs with Us. Annexure 2. Some major incidents of conflict. Publ. By Dir. Anthropological Survey of India, Kolktta. · Pandya, V (1999): 'Contact or Not to Contact: Questions about Jarawas of Andaman Islands' in Cultural Survival Quarterly, Winter, pp 59-65. · Pandya, V. 1993. Above the forest: a study of Andamanese ethnoanaemology and cosmology and the power of ritual'. Oxford Universities press, New Delhi. · Portman, M.V. 1899. The History of our relations with the Andamanese. 2.vols. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India. 10
· R.C.Temple 1925/29. Remarks on the Andaman Islanders & their country, amended extracts from Census reports. · Sarkar, J. 1990. The Jarawa. Andaman & Nicobar Islands Tribe series. The Anthropological Survey of India. Seagull books. Calcutta. · Singh, R. 1975. Arrows speak louder than words. The Last Andaman Islanders. National Geographic magazine. July, Washington D.C. · Singh, S. 2003. In the Sea of Influence: A World system perspective of the Nicobar Islands. Lund Studies in Human Ecology. Human Ecology Division Lund University, Finngatan 16, SE- 223 62 Lund. · Venkateswar, S. 2004. Development and Ethnocide. Colonial Practices in the Andaman Islands. International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs, Document No.111- Copenhagen 2004. pgs 93-109. · Whitaker, R. & Whitaker, Z. 1984. The Andaman Tribes--Victims of Development. Cultural Survival Quarterly 10(2):13-18. · Whitaker, R. Endangered Andamans: Managing Tropical moist forests: A Case Study of the Andamans. Environmental Services Group. India: WWF- India and MAB India, Dept. of Environment. 11

M Chandi

File: from-fear-to-policy-attitudinal-shifts-in-the-perception-and.pdf
Title: Microsoft Word - IUAES frmwrk.doc
Author: M Chandi
Author: Seema
Published: Thu Jun 1 15:59:52 2006
Pages: 11
File size: 0.06 Mb


, pages, 0 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com