Neo-liberal Environmentalism and Adivasi

In the current decades, public outcry against the growing deforestation and animal cruelty has been increasingly witnessed throughout the world. The rise of such environmental consciousness amongst the people is commendable in the current era of globalisation, privatisation and liberalisation when the forest and tree cover, and the wildlife are on the decline. The doctrine which is followed by most of these conscious minds is ‘world is habitat for all creatures, and to protect and maintain biodiversity natural resources should be used sustainably.’ This noble thought is admirable and should be endorsed by all. However, the praxis of environmentalism by this recently emerged neo-liberal environmentalist community is contentious since it is often found to be in contradiction with the indigenous communities who are de facto born environmentalists. Such antithesis between these two communities is due to the fact that the former is a ‘nature-alienated community’ who pragmatically seeks to create a borderline between human habitat and the habitat of wildlife, and the latter is a ‘nature-based community’ who lives a symbiotic life with nature. Therefore, to understand the different types of environmentalism, we must critically examine the recent rise of the environmentalism and animal lover community and scrutinise their social location.

Who are these modern-day Environmentalists and Animal Lovers?

The environmentalists or animal lovers are largely drawn from the urban middle and upper class society. The proletariat although are born environmentalists and more prone to environmental pollution have less participation in the newly emerged environmentalist group. The proletariat in the process of enclosure of the property were deprived of their means of livelihood over the period and were pushed back to the edge of sub-human life or to the limits of what is human. Under these circumstances, for them regaining or asserting the status ‘human’ is the utmost priority than the practice of environmentalism unlike the middle and upper-class population, who have already attained livelihood security.

The capitalist development in the West that manifested in the enclosure movement and the accumulation of private property gave rise to the unabetted exploitation of natural resources. The capitalist market then indoctrinated consumerism by creating demand for its newly developed consumer goods. To create never-ending demand for its products, then the capitalist forces went on exploiting natural resources mercilessly which caused much harm to the Mother Earth. The unabetted consumerism resulted in the expansion of the market beyond the national territories – big industrial hubs were erected, shopping malls were mushroomed, new mode of transportation and information and communication technologies was introduced and so on. These processes have immensely devasted the existing biodiversity and have ensued climate change globally.

Currently, in the majority of the urban areas in India in particular and the world in general, the green cover has fallen to an alarming level. For instance, a study on the spatio-temporal changes of green spaces in Mumbai reveals that the green cover out of the total geographical area in Mumbai has declined from 46.7 per cent to 26.67 per cent between the period 1988 and 2018. Similarly, According to Ramya Natarajan’s study on greening urban spaces in India shows that Kolkata’s tree cover has fallen to 7.3 per cent from 23.4 per cent in the last 20 years. Likewise, other major cities have also experienced a drastic fall in green space of the geographical area due to urban sprawl. Due to such asymmetric development, the urban area has turned out to be a significant source of pollution and eventually, the quality of the environment has become a matter of concern for the health of the urban population. The health crisis has compelled the middle and upper class particularly, to involve in the social awareness campaign to counter environmental pollution, global warming, and over consumption.

Similarly, the profound love for animals amongst them is not a result of any spontaneous process but because of the transition in their social life. Over time, this group has become very much part of the capitalist consumerism system. Individualism, private property, and privacy have become one of the inevitable aspects of their social system. They have constrained their living space by constructing boundaries around their houses, driven by the idea of accumulation of private property. Their social relation and interaction have completely shrunk. Such an isolated life in a crowded urban centre has alienated them from the larger human societal relation. Such alienation and withdrawal from the social life has ensued distrust towards fellow human beings and caused psychological trauma and mental illness amongst them. To get a temporal relief from such sufferings they started searching for love from the animals by domesticating them, mostly dogs, cats and parrots. In fact, it is not searching for love but forcefully extracting love from the animals. And, by domesticating dogs or cats and caging some birds they bestow themselves as animal lovers.

Domesticating animals is not a true expression of sympathy or love but rather a reflection of colonialist behavior. The very act of domestication mirrors the processes of domination and control inherent in colonialism, transforming wild beings into subjugated dependents. That is, first make the basic social reproduction such as food, cloth and shelter scarce, and then make them dependent upon the colonists. In the contemporary world, animals are being deprived of their food and shelter due to the unabetted expansion of market in the hitherto ecologically sensitive geographies. By feeding some of these impoverished animals and providing shelter in their houses they chain them with the duty of a servant that is they are trained to be loyal to their masters in every aspect. Moreover, they also force animals to adopt a life of privacy by living within a boundary of four walls of their master’s house or in a cage.

Indigenous Environmentalism

Adivasis and other traditional forest dwelling communities are often admired for maintaining and protecting biodiversity through their symbiotic life with nature. There is a custom of protecting and forbidding the abuse of the wildlife and natural resources among the Adivasis. For example, in the central India, Adivasi have been preserving this rich culture through their totem name. They embrace the name of creatures and natural resources as their totems and are bound with the responsibility to protect their respective creatures and resources. Some of the totems representing the flora and fauna of the Chhotanagpur region are Lakra (tiger), Barwa (leopard), Bage (tiger), Xaxa (crow), Tirkey (dove), Toppo (bird), Kerketta (bird), Ekka (tortoise), Kujur (a flower or medicinal creeper), Jojo (tamarind tree), Kandulna (kusum fruit or tree), Barla (banyan tree), Soreng (rock), Bilung (salt) etc. Adoption of such totems shows their symbiotic relation with the nature and everything that it abodes.

Despite the rich practice of environmentalism, they are witch-hunted for the degradation of the environment and extinction of wildlife by the so-called nature-lovers or wildlife groups. Such false accusation is deliberately labelled against them by the ‘nature-alienated community’ to deconstruct and disapprove the indigenous environmentalism that inhibits wealth accumulation. Moreover, by disapproving the indigenous environmentalism they could continue to satisfy their colonised desires of sophisticated leisure life that is essentially delinked from the nature. Their demand for large motor vehicles, wide roads, malls and restaurants, many corporate houses etc. are the sole reasons for the degradation of the environment and biodiversity. This has shrunk the habitat area and reduced the availability of ecological needs of the wildlife. Consequently, this has led to the tussle between man and wild for the limited livelihood.

Illustratively, a report on human-animal conflict by Abhishek Angad shows that since the creation of the state of Jharkhand, 1405 people and around 80 elephants were killed due to human-elephant conflicts. Similarly, a data compiled by Ashis Senapati on the same issue in case of Odisha manifests that between 2014 and 2020, there were 805 human-elephant encounters which caused the death of 527 people and injured 442 people. Furthermore, the Saranda forest which is situated on the border of Jharkhand and Odisha once used to be one of the biggest sal tree forests in Asia covering an area of 820 kilometers and was also declared as an elephant corridor. However, the proliferation of mining activities has reduced this forest coverage to one-third. This had led to the deforestation and subsequently forced animals to flee into crop areas of nearby villages in search of food.

The human-wild conflict has caught the attention of the urban-based wildlife groups (so-called animal lovers) who univocally accused indigenous people of encroaching wildlife habitats. As a panacea to it, they advocate for the creation of separate habitats for wildlife such as reserve forests, protected forests, national parks and sanctuaries and so on. Until the enactment of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, Adivasis and other traditional forest dwelling communities were labelled as encroachers of forest lands. After the enactment of this Act, they were entitled to own forest lands, use minor forest produce and manage the forest, and rehabilitation in case of displacement or illegal eviction. However, the validity of the law was challenged by an NGO and the apex court while hearing the PIL on 13 Feb 2019, ordered eviction of more than 10 lakh Adivasis and forest-dwelling families across 16 states whose claim over traditional forest lands were rejected. Fortunately, later the Court stayed the order of eviction. The Forest Rights Act of 2006 was believed to undo the ‘historical injustice’ committed against Adivasis and other traditional forest dwellers; however, on the contrary, this law is being weaponized by the state to evict them from their forest lands by rejecting their lawful claims.

Conclusion

The neo-liberal development has further alienated urban middle and upper class from nature due to the very development paradigm that it believes in. Their alienation from nature is vividly mirrored in the form of their fondness for hill trekking, nature camp, swimming, boating and fishing in water bodies, picnicking at hill station and jungle safari and so on. The urban middle and rich classes have long been alienated from the natural habitat; visiting such places has been defined as a ‘status activity’ in the neoliberal lexicon. On the contrary, Adivasis and rural communities have easy access to these places, as they are an integral part of their everyday life and livelihood. It is high time the nature-alienated urban community acknowledges that indigenous people are not encroachers but the true guardians of nature and biodiversity. Furthermore, they must recognise that the relentless expansion of consumerism, fueled by the neoliberal market economy, has systematically degraded natural habitats and biodiversity, accelerating an unchecked climate catastrophe. Instead of placing blame on indigenous communities, urban environmentalists and society at large should engage in deep self-reflection, reassess their unsustainable consumption patterns, and embrace indigenous ecological wisdom. Only by doing so can we hope to restore balance and protect Mother Earth before it is too late.

(John Kujur is an acedemic, based in Ranchi. He can be reached at johnkcds@gmail.com)