Accumulation by Dispossession of Tribes
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Marx on Primitive Accumulation
3. Marx on Capital Accumulation
4. David Harvey on Accumulation by Dispossession
5. David Harvey on Neo-Liberalism
6. New Economic Reform: The Indian Context
7. Blueprint for the Reforms
8. Overview: Important Reform Measures (Step towards LPG)
9. Accumulation by Dispossession: North East Tribal Reality
10. Overview: Resistance of Accumulation for Rural Lives and Livelihood
11. Reference
1. Introduction
David Harvey’s adaptation and redeployment of Marx’s notion of ‘primitive accumulation’ – under the heading of ‘accumulation by dispossession’ – has reignited interest in the concept among geographers. This adaptation of the concept of primitive accumulation to different contexts than those Marx analyzed raises a variety of theoretical and practical issues.
Throughout his writings, one can the gradual shift in economic and social life of the 21st century towards social and economic policies that have given an increased liberality and centrality to markets, market processes, and to the interests of the capital. In fact, the mechanics of the capitalistic mode of production has been put at the center of every aspect of modernity.[1]
Taking a new turn in the history of capitalism through Neoliberalism, it then collapse the notion of freedom in to freedom for only economic elites. “The freedom it embodies reflects the interests of private property owners, business, multinational corporations and the financial capital”.[2]
This paper highlights the accumulation[3] that occurs with the shift in the Indian policy through the new economic reform (the opening up of trade and market) which in turn has affected the tribal in particular. Land alienation and displacement at the cost of development has been the mainstay concerns and issues of the tribal.
2. Marx on Primitive Accumulation
Marx came to the issue of Primitive Accumulation at the end of Capital Volume I. Marx analyzes this phenomenon as a transformation of social relations. Primitive accumulation is for Marx, first and foremost, the ‘historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production’, transforming ‘the social means of subsistence and of production into capital’ and ‘the immediate producers into wage laborers’.[4]
Marx insisted that the constitutive of capital, ‘begins with primitive accumulation, appears as a permanent process in the accumulation and concentration of capital, and expresses itself finally as centralization of existing capitals in a few hands and a deprivation of many of their capital (to which expropriation is now changed)’ (Marx, 1966, p. 246).[5] His description on Primitive Accumulation is not the description of only the period of transition that led to the emergence of capitalism. However, he also sees at as an historical phase of transition from feudalism to capitalism.
According to Marx, capitalism developed out of primitive accumulation and once capitalism had been established, it was replaced by capitalist accumulation. Thus, primitive accumulation belongs to a historically specific process of transition towards capitalism. Capitalist social relations rest on the divorce of the mass of the population from the means of production where in there lies a clear distinction between the have and have-nots. This class distinction was the result of primitive accumulation and is the historical presupposition and constitutive basis of capitalist social relations. It is also clear that primitive accumulation is only a process of transition towards capitalism.
Crises of capitalist accumulation find a temporary resolution in the imposition of conditions of primitive accumulation upon new populations, including the creation of new markets, discovery of new raw materials, and new and cheaper proletarians.[6] The means to overcome crises of capitalist reproduction is only through dispossession and expropriation as they (the capitalist) are hungry of capital for surplus labour, thereby equating the social labour time without an equivalent, develops through the expanded reproduction of dispossessed labour. Marx describe this as, ‘to accumulate, is to conquer the world of social wealth, to increase the mass of human beings exploited by him, and thus to extend both the direct and the indirect sway of the capitalist’ (Marx, 1983, p. 555).[7]
It is also to be noted that capitalist accumulation necessarily entails reproduction of the fundamental process of separation, a process of separation, in which nothing remains in the way it was and in which, and at the same time, the essential relations between the classes remains unchanged: capital on the one hand, and the doubly free laborer, on the other. Marx was clear about the meaning of so-called primitive accumulation ‘the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of self-earned private property; in other words: the expropriation of the laborer’ (Marx, 1983, pp. 724)[8].
3. Marx on Capital Accumulation
Karl Marx in his critique stated that capital[9] accumulation refers to the operation whereby a sum of money is transformed into a larger sum of money. According to him, capital accumulation has a double origin in terms of trade and in trade and in expropriation. The reason is that a stock of capital can be increased through a process of exchange or "trading up" but also through directly taking an asset or resource from someone else, without compensation. David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession.[10] To them, removing the obstacle of the expansion of trade and its violent process has led to the continuation and progress of capital accumulation. This is with the fact that as the markets expands, more and more new opportunities develop for accumulating capital as more and more types of goods and services can be traded in.
Marx argue that capital accumulation reproduces the underlying relationship between capital and labour, and the analysis of the fate of the worker shows primitive accumulation as an essential concept for the analysis of the ongoing process of capitalist accumulation.[11] It also continues the process of expropriation as a result of its own process. This is the process of capital centralization.[12] Leaving aside his desperately triumphal remarks when analyzing the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation – the ‘centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument”.[13] Thus it is clear that it is the premise of capital having capitalist class relations as its base.
In discussing primitive accumulation, Marx is always both ironic and dialectical, ironic in his deconstruction of bourgeois mythologies about capital being generated through the frugality of the elite, dialectical in his unstinting view of this violent expropriation as necessary for the furthering of human possibilities.[14] He recognizes and exposes the hypocrisy of capitalist rhetoric about human rights and equality. The common property regimes, peasant production, and artisanal labor that capitalism replaces ‘exclude the concentration of these means of production’ and so also exclude ‘co-operation, division of labour within each separate process of production, the control over, and the productive application of the forces of Nature by society, and the free development of the social productive powers’. They thus ‘decree universal mediocrity’ (1967: 762)[15].
4. David Harvey on Accumulation by Dispossession
The term “Accumulation by Dispossession” can be seen as largely synonymous with Marx’s concept of “Primitive Accumulation.” David Harvey’s adaptation and redeployment of Marx’s notion of ‘primitive accumulation’ – under the heading of ‘accumulation by dispossession’ (2003) – has reignited interest in the concept among geographers and others Primitive accumulation – and, the process of proletarianization that lies at its core – has long been central to discussions in development studies. Marx analyzed raises a variety of theoretical and practical issues. Since, not only Harvey’s work but also earlier writings on primitive accumulation in contemporary contexts have by now received significant attention.
The types of processes included in both concepts are the same: “the commodification and privatization of land and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; the conversion of various forms of property rights (common, collective, state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights; the commodification of labor power and the suppression of alternative (and indigenous) forms of production and consumption; colonial, neo-colonial and imperial processes of appropriation of assets; the monetization of exchange and taxation, particularly of land” etc.[16]
In introducing the new concept, Harvey sought to emphasize the fact that primitive accumulation is an ongoing process, and that “predatory practices” have played a major recurrent role in processes of capital accumulation, including in the current conjuncture. argues that accumulation by dispossession can be seen as “the necessary cost of making a successful breakthrough to capitalist [and socialist] development”, but he also argues that in some instances (particularly post-1973) accumulation by dispossession, rather than opening up a new path of expanded reproduction, disrupted and destroyed paths that were already open.[17]
To Harvey, Accumulation by Dispossession becomes the central mechanism. This is based primarily on the appropriation and marketization of hitherto uncommodified realms. Capitalism s growth is weaker than before. Moreover, while the market veiled exploitative relations in production, accumulation by dispossession relies on a more overt use of force. Thus it is political power, rather than any strictly economic logic, which dominates and which needs to be understood and challenged[18]. For him, one of the most effective vehicles for capital accumulation via appropriation, or ‘dispossession,’ is financial.
His understanding has made him to conclude that accumulation is is a politically driven process which occurs simultaneously with capital accumulation. It works in a variety of ways from the subtle commodification of once communal property to outright theft. It is essentially contingent and ad hoc, whereas capital accumulation is systematic. It was necessary in the initial foundation of capitalism but since the end of the long post-war boom has again come to the fore as the main driver of economic growth.
5. David Harvey on Neo-Liberalism
Harvey’s contention is that we are witnessing, through this process of neoliberalisation, the deepening penetration of capitalism into political and social institutions as well as cultural consciousness itself. Neo-liberalism is the intensification of the influence and dominance of capital; it is the elevation of capitalism, as a mode of production, into an ethic, a set of political imperatives, and a cultural logic. It is also a project: a project to strengthen, restore, or, in some cases, constitute anew the power of economic elites. The essence of neo-liberalism, for Harvey, can be characterized as a rightward shift in Marxian class struggle.[19]
The analysis stems from Marx’s insight about the nature of capital itself. Capital is not simply money, property, or one economic variable among others. Marx explicitly argued that capital is a process that puts into motion all of the other dimensions of modern economic, political, social, and cultural life. It creates the wage system, influences values, goals, and the ethics of individuals, transforms our relation to nature, to ourselves, and to our community, and constantly seeks to mold state imperatives until they are in harmony with its own. Neo-liberalism is therefore not a new turn in the history of capitalism.
Neo-liberalism is not simply an ethic in abstract; rather the locus for its influence has become the ‘neo-liberal state’, which collapses the notion of freedom into freedom for economic elites.[20] ‘The freedoms it embodies reflect the interests of private property owners, businesses, multinational corporations and financial capital.’ The neo-liberal state defends the new reach and depth of capital’s interests and is defined against the ‘embedded liberalism’ of the several
Neo-liberalism and the neoliberal state have been able to reverse the various political and economic gains made under welfare state policies and institutions. This transformation of the state is an effect of the interests of capital and its reaction to the embedded liberalism of the post war decades. Harvey argues that ‘neo-liberalization was from the very beginning a project to achieve the restoration of class power,’ ‘a political project to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites.’
By [accumulation by dispossession] I mean the continuation and proliferation of accumulation practices which Marx had treated of as ‘primitive’ or ‘original’ during the rise of capitalism. These include the commodification and privatization of land and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations…; conversion of various forms of property rights (common, collective, state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights (most spectacularly represented by China); suppression of rights to the commons; commodification of labor power and the suppression of alternative (indigenous) forms of production and consumption; colonial, neocolonial, and imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources); monetization of exchange and taxation, particularly of land; the slave trade (which continues particularly in the sex industry); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating of all the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession.[21]
6. New Economic Reform: The Indian Context
The Economic Reforms launched in July 1991 in India were in nature of a crisis management response to the economic and political crises that erupted in early 1991. Since then, the Indian economy started experiencing an IMF-World Bank dictated regime of liberalization. The economic crisis comprised a steep fall in the foreign exchange reserve, galloping inflation, large public and current account deficits and mounting Bretton Wood of domestic and foreign debt. [22] Thus, for that moment, it could be claimed that the economic reform were essentially of a 'crisis driven' variety.
The economic liberalization in India refers economic reforms in India The new neo-liberal policies included opening for international trade and investment, deregulation, initiation of privatization, tax reforms, and inflation-controlling measures. The main objective of the government was to transform the economic system from socialism to capitalism so that to achieve high economic growth and industrialize the nation for the well-being of Indian citizens. Today India is mainly characterized as a market economy.
7. Blueprint for the Reforms[23]
The blue print for the Reforms was provided by the combination of macro-economic stabilization and structural adjustment programme of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank respectively, which had been adopted by many countries before in similar situations. The typical measures under these programmes are:
Stabilisation
- Devaluation of the currency for making exchange rate more realistic,
- Withdrawal of restrictions on imports,
- Reduction/ elimination of fiscal and balance of payments deficits,
- Removal of all controls on prices, exchange and interest rate,
- Elimination/ reduction of all subsidies,
- Introduction of financial structure reforms and free entry of foreign financial institutions,
- Complete autonomy of the central bank to pursue independent monetary policy.
- Decontrol of industries,
- Privatization of government-owned entities,
- Structural changes in the economy aimed at export-led growth,
- Free entry of foreign capital and technology without any let, hindrance or conditions,
- Free entry and exit of foreign firms including financial and services industries,
- Free cross border movement of capital and other funds,
- Legislative safeguards for protection of intellectual property rights,
- Creation of legal climate for enforcement of legal contracts, private property rights, and free entry and exit of business, industrial and financial firms.
8. Overview: Important Reform Measures (Step towards LPG)[24]
Devaluation: The first step towards globalization was taken with the announcement of the devaluation of Indian currency by 18-19 percent against major currencies in the international foreign exchange market. In fact, this measure was taken in order to resolve the BOP crisis.
Disinvestment: In order to make the process of globalization smooth, privatization and liberalization policies are moving along as well. Under the privatization scheme, most of the public sector undertakings have been/ are being sold to private sector
Dismantling of The Industrial Licensing Regime:At present, only six industries are under compulsory licensing mainly on accounting of environmental safety and strategic considerations. A significantly amended locational policy in tune with the liberalized licensing policy is in place. No industrial approval is required from the government for locations not falling within 25 kms of the periphery of cities having a population of more than one million.
Allowing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) across a wide spectrum of industries and encouraging non-debt flows. The Department has put in place a liberal and transparent foreign investment regime where most activities are opened to foreign investment on automatic route without any limit on the extent of foreign ownership. Some of the recent initiatives taken to further liberalize the FDI regime, inter alias, include opening up of sectors such as Insurance (upto 26%); development of integrated townships (upto 100%); defense industry (upto 26%); tea plantation (upto 100% subject to divestment of 26% within five years to FDI); enhancement of FDI limits in private sector banking, allowing FDI up to 100% under the automatic route for most manufacturing activities in SEZs; opening up B2B e-commerce; Internet Service Providers (ISPs) without Gateways; electronic mail and voice mail to 100% foreign investment subject to 26% divestment condition; etc. The Department has also strengthened investment facilitation measures through Foreign Investment Implementation Authority (FIIA).
Non Resident Indian Schemethe general policy and facilities for foreign direct investment as available to foreign investors/ Companies are fully applicable to NRIs as well. In addition, Government has extended some concessions especially for NRIs and overseas corporate bodies having more than 60% stake by NRIs
Throwing Open Industries Reserved For The Public Sector to Private Participation. Now there are only three industries reserved for the public sector
Abolition of the (MRTP) Act, which necessitated prior approval for capacity expansion
The removal of quantitative restrictions on imports.
The reduction of the peak customs tarifffrom over 300 per cent prior to the 30 per cent rate that applies now.
Wide-ranging financial sector reformsin the banking, capital markets, and insurance sectors, including the deregulation of interest rates, strong regulation and supervisory systems, and the introduction of foreign/private sector competition
9. Accumulation by Dispossession: North East Tribal Reality
Globalization and Changing Land Relations in the Northeast
For centuries the land ownership pattern of the North Eastern tribal societies was communal[25]. The communal ethos also led to egalitarian values in their societies and for centuries kept the communities well knit and united. But recent studies noted that most tribes of the region are in a transition from community to individual ownership. The developments that take place in the name of modernization lead to individualism and class formation and destroy the communal ethos of the tribal communities and are ushering in an era of unhealthy competition that was unheard of in their societies. It leads to the monopolization of the resources by a few and the impoverishment of the many. Globalization adds to this development model in the region and brings further division and dissension in their communities instead of strengthening their egalitarian ethos.
The forces of globalization have intensified these processes. It is the third phase that began with the colonial age and results in the further integration of the informal economy into the formal one on the terms of the latter.[26] The first two phases had begun the process of turning land that is their livelihood into a commodity. We have also seen that it has resulted in their impoverishment. Globalisation in its present form strengthens the individual hold and results in monopolisation. The first step being suggested is abolition of the CPRs and recognition of individual ownership alone.
For example, several people-displacing projects are being initiated in the Northeast but the communities that have a legal right over their land have been resisting them. One of them is the Khasi communities around Domiasiat in the West Khasi Hills where efforts are being made to acquire land for uranium mining. Instead of negotiating with the communities as done till now, according to a news item the Government of India is thinking of moving towards individual ownership of land.[27] Also the Government of Meghalaya is reported to be planning a similar move.[28]
Dams and Displacement
The government and proponents of large dams in the Northeast paint a win-win picture: exploiting the country's largest perennial water system to produce plentiful power for the nation, economic benefits to states through power export to other parts of the country, flood control and small displacement of local communities. The North-eastern region has been identified as India's 'future powerhouse' and 168 large dams of a cumulative capacity of 63,328 MW are planned.[29] One of the major arguments in favour of large hydroelectric projects in the Northeast is that there is relatively 'small displacement' by submergence as compared to other parts of the country. But a careful perusal of the ground situation indicates that displacement is grossly underestimated.
Dams have displaced massive numbers. The Dumber Hydroelectric Project in Tripura forced the relocation of about 200,000 tribal people. The Pagladiya Dam Project in Assam, if implemented, will displace about 105,000 people. Indian government plans to construct 145 more dams in an ecologically fragile region highly vulnerable to earthquakes are being strongly contested by affected communities. If we combine all the categories of development-induced displacement with the displaces of urbanisation, it is likely to involve a further three million people. As in the rest of India, most development-induced IDPs[30] are tribal people.
Of greater importance are the major dams that are being planned. The thrust in them is towards private companies building them for their own profit. At least 48 of them are being planned, most of them in areas like Arunachal Pradesh where the tradition is CPR based but without the legal base of the sixth Schedule. So that will result in much impoverishment since most land will be take over with no compensation since it is considered State property.
Globalization and Unemployment
Basic to globalisation is employment reduction. Because of mechanisation, very few jobs will be created. So those who are deprived of their livelihood will not even have a job to take its place. Impoverishment is bound to follow as studies in other parts of India have shown. Women are always the worst affected. In other words, the first thrust of globalisation is massive land acquisition purely for private profit. The second is impoverishment of those who lose their livelihood in order to ensure the profit of a few private companies. Such privatisation is both of land and of water. So a large number of tribal and riverine communities will be affected. These processes need to be monitored.
Globalization and Market
The tribal economy was generally characterized by its primitiveness, where market was virtually absent and money played a trivial role. People produced their every need on their own. They neither produced any marketable surplus nor did they purchase anything from the market. The mode of production was mainly agrarian based, apart from which they practiced hunting, gathering, fishing, weaving, etc. A sort of stagnant but self-sufficient and self-reliant economy has been persisting since time immemorial. The colonial administration to some extent, had given some developmental touch to these societies mainly for the convenience of intra and inter-territorial expansion activities; rather the true history of development of these societies has started from the time of independence for the individual societies or for the state as a whole. And the task of development in these societies was carried out mainly on the basis of huge capital investment without estimating any result.[31]
With the injection of the flow of money into the societies, the mode of production has also changed drastically followed by the consumption pattern. The standard of living has risen apparently, however, the developmental task has become complicated and it becomes more knotty when the market in these societies gets the globalization waves. Now these are purely consumerist societies and gaining momentum to conduct vigorous studies on different socio-economic aspects that determine development.
Equity cannot depend either on keeping tribal traditions intact or on processes that bring about impoverishment. That is where one needs to question the thinking behind globalisation that is presented as the market directed economy. Basic to it is consumerism with its individualism. It is resource intensive and the attack will be on the region’s land, water and biodiversity that are the people’s livelihood.
It is found that the traditional tribal society is in transition from a mere subsistence earner to a surplus producing one. In the days of market mechanism, the mode of production has also got a drastic change in respect to the functional relationship of various inputs involved in the production process as well as in its distributional aspects. From a mere subsistence level of mode of production, the economy as a whole has been reorganized for the market. Thus, generation of personal income has achieved priority among the tribesmen. It is also noted that the tribesman now vertically shifted their profession i.e. from the traditional agricultural practice to secondary and tertiary sector. The rising literacy level alone is not the only cause of shifting the choice of profession of the tribesmen in the study area rather this vertical mobility is a spontaneous result of development of infrastructural setups.
The rate of land acquisition accelerated after Globalization. A study of land acquisition in the four states of Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh by Action Aid accounted for a total of 314700.31 hectares of land as of 2007. These lands were for water sourcing, industries, mining, and non-hydro power plants, not counting land acquired for defence and other development purposes. They contain 80 % of the tribal population of the country. The lands 'acquired' belonged to tribals and forest dwellers. It is worth noting that more than 60% of India's industries and mining are located in these regions. Source: http://www.sjweb.info/sjs/pjnew/PJShow.cfm?pubTextID=8957 as on 13th of October, 2010
Globalization in the Fifth Schedule Areas
The most serious threat to the adivasi people in the country today is the pressure on the Fifth Schedule. Both Central and several state governments are seriously making efforts to amend the laws prescribed under the Fifth Schedule and their corresponding state laws in order to allow private and corporate players to take over tribal and forest lands. Violation of the Fifth Schedule has occurred in many states like in Andhra Pradesh where the Land Transfer Regulation Act was ignored while giving mining leases in scheduled areas to private companies. Private mining has been taking place in Rajasthan, M.P, Orissa, Maharashtra and other Fifth Schedule states.[32]
In A.P, until we as a social action group fighting for tribal land rights, questioned the legality of the leases by mobilizing the tribal communities and raising a legal battle, this transgression was overlooked. The Supreme Court verdict in the Samatha Vs the State of A.P in 1997 clearly stated that the mining leases were in violation of the Fifth Schedule and that they apply to all states having Fifth Schedule. The pressure[33] on the Fifth Schedule continues even after the Supreme Court judgment.
In a state where there is a strong no-tribal lobby and pressure, they demanded for right to nativity and therefore, right to ownership of land and other opportunities. This has posed a serious threat to tribal new generation in diminishing control over land and employment. Besides, land alienation to non tribal and increase in external populations has been a dangerous threat to the tribal in general as their livelihood entirely depends on land and forest (the natural resource).
This situation is more critical in areas where projects/industries are proposed as strategies adopted by industries to sabotage any community protests are centered on inciting the youth with false promises of jobs and employment. The growing involvement of political parties has provoked the youth into violent acts. The classical example can be: Utkal Alumina Project in Orissa where such clashes led to police firing and the death of three tribals in December 2000, and the attacks on tribals and activists in Nagarnar (Chattisgarh), which were spearheaded by non tribal youth under the aegis of local political parties to set up the NMDC Steel Plant against tribal interests.[34]
Displacement and Loss of Livelihood
Estimates show that close to 114,000 farming households (each household on an average comprising five members) and an additional 82,000 farm worker families who are dependent upon these farms for their livelihoods, will be displaced. In other words, at least 10 lakh (1,000,000) people who primarily depend upon agriculture for their survival will face eviction. Experts calculate that the total loss of income to the farming and the farm worker families is at least Rs. 212 crores a year. This does not include other income lost (for instance of artisans) due to the demise of local rural economies.[35]
The government promises ‘humane’ displacement followed by relief and rehabilitation. However, the historical record does not offer any room for hope on this count: an estimated 40 million people (of which nearly 40% are Adivasis and 25% Dalits) have lost their land since 1950 on account of displacement due to large development projects. At least 75% of them still await rehabilitation[36].
Almost 80% of the agricultural population owns only about 17% of the total agriculture land, making them near landless farmers. Far more families and communities depend on a piece of land (for work, grazing) than those who simply own it. However, compensation is being discussed only for those who hold titles to land. No compensation has been planned for those who don’t.
10. Overview: Resistance of Accumulation for Rural Lives and Livelihood
The political landscape of India in the last 20 years presents “a million mutinies”. In every region and state, small and large people’s movements have emerged to fight back the appropriation of their natural resources, livelihood and survival by their own governments and large national and international corporations. What we present here is only a snapshot of these rebellions.
In the Southern Region
· Struggle against Coca-Cola in Plachimada, Kerala - holding Coca-Cola accountable for water shortages and pollution in the area: the community forced the Coca- Cola bottling plant to shut down in March 2004. Spearheaded by Coca-Cola Virudha Samara Samiti.
· Muthanga Forest Land Struggle, Waynad, Kerala- Led by Adivasi Gothra Sabha (AGS) and its leader C K .Janu for Tribal land rights.
· Farmers protest against land acquisitions for Bangalore- Mysore Highway, Karnataka.
· People’s struggle against mining of Krishna River by the Reliance Group.
Western and Central India
· Dalit struggle for Gairan (grazing) land in Marathawada region, Maharashtra, under the Jameen Adhikar Andolan.
· Struggle against Reliance Gas lines in Sindhudurg district, Maharashtra.
· Farmers protest against SEZ in Raigad, against land acquisition by Reliance in Greater Mumbai.
· Farmers (26 Gaon Bachao Sangharsh Samiti) protest Indiabulls
· Fishermen’s struggle against the proposed gigantic port at Umbergaon
· Anti-Coca-Cola agitation in Kaladera, Rajasthan by Jan Sangharsh Samiti.
· Narmada Bacho Andolan for over 20 years has opposed big dams, displacement of people and brought issue of rehabilitation, justice and ills of mega projects into the mainstream.
· Against Privatization of Shivnath river in Chattisgarh, National Alliance of People’s Movements, the All India Youth Federation, the Nadi Ghati Sangharsha Samiti and the Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha have been uniting people living along the river to oppose the privatization . 23.6 km length of Shivnath River has been sold to the Radius Water Company.
Eastern Region
· Struggles in Kashipur, Gopalpur, Kalinganagar (Orissa) against displacement.
· Struggle in Singur and Nandigram (West Bengal) against SEZs and displacement.
· Adivasi struggle in Jadugoda against uranium mining and displacement.
· People’s movement against the construction of the to Koel-Karo Hydro- Power Project (80 kms from Ranchi under the Koel-Karo Jan Sanghathana, that has stalled the implementation of the project for over three decades
North-East Region
· Struggle against Pahladia dam in Assam and the privatization of water resources.
· Peoples movement in Doyang and Tongani, Assam against forcibile eviction from forests. • Struggle against the Tipiamukh Multipurpose Hydel Project in Manipur.
Northern Region
· Anti Coca-Cola struggle in Mehdiganj, near Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh.
· Struggle against privatization of water, Delhi,
· Farmers protest against Reliance SEZ in Jhajjar, Haryana
· Farmers Struggle against land acquisition for Trident SEZ in Barnala Punjab.
11. Reference
· Arrighi, G. and Aschoff, N., “Accumulation by Dispossession and Its Limits; The Southern Africa Paradigm Revisited”, Department of Sociology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
· Bhanumathi, K., “Globalization in the Fifth Scheduled Areas – Alienation of Lands and Resources of Tribals in India”, Samata, Hyderabad.
· Fernandes, W. (2004), “Development Deprived, the Environment and the Livelihood of the Poor in the North East”, Social Action, 53, (n. 3, July-Sept), pp. 242-255.
· Glassman, J., (1984), “Primitive Accumulation, Accumulation by Dispossession, Accumulation by ‘Extra Economic Means’”, Department of Geography, university of British, Columbia, Canada.
· Harvey, D., (2005), “A Brief History of Neo-liberalism”, Oxford University Press.
· Loveman, M., (2005), “The Modern State and the Primitive Accumulation of Symbolic Power”, AJS Volume 110, Number 6 (May): 1651-1683
· Mukherjee, S.R., “Consumerism in Tribal India: A case study from Arunachal Pradesh”, Department of Economics, University of North Bengal, NBU, Darjeeling, India.
· Patnaik, U., (2006), “Poverty and Neo-Liberalizm in India”, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
· Pereira, M., (2005), “Seminar on The Impact of Globalization on the North East – Globalization and Changing Land Relations in the North East”, Himalayan Research institute, Tezpur, March 10-11.
· Pratheep, P.S., “Globalisation, Identity and Culture: Tribal Issues in India”, Catholicate College (Mahatma Gandhi University).
· Zarembka, P., “Primitive Accumulation in Marxism, Historical or Trans-historical Separation from Means of Production”.
12. Footnotes
[1]Harvey, D., (2005)
[2]Ibib.
[3]Basically refers to capital accumulation
[4]Glassman, J., (1984)
[5]Cited in Glassman, J., (1984)
[6]Glassman, J. (1984)
[7] Cited in Glassman, J., (1984)
[8]Ibib.
[9]Capital is defined essentially as economic or commercial asset value in search of additional value or surplus-value
[10]Harvey, D., (2005),
[11]Zarembka, P.
[12]Centralization of capital is not accumulation by means of value expansion. Instead, centralization is a form of expropriation
[13]Zarembka, P.
[14] Cited in Glassman, J., (1984)
[15] Arrighi, G. and Aschoff, N.
[16]Excerpt from Arrighi, G. and Aschoff, N.
[17]ibid.
[18]Harvey, D., (2005)
[19]Ibid.
[20]Loveman, M., (2005)
[21]Harvey, D., (2005)
[22] http://www.proxsa.org/inspiration/ambedkar/ecoreforms.html as on 12th of October, 2010
[23] http://www.proxsa.org/inspiration/ambedkar/ecoreforms.html as on 12th of October, 2010
[24] Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization
[25] The community owned the land and distributed it to the members of the village according to their needs and claimed it back from individuals after use. This system denied absolute ownership rights of land to individuals
[26] Cited in Amin 1999 : 23-25 by Pereira, M., (2005)
[27] The Telegraph, December 13, 2003
[28] The Sentinel, June 1, 2004).
[29] http://www.indiawaterportal.org/post/1611 as on 13th of October, 2010
[30]Internally Displaced Persons
[31] Excerpt from Mukherjee, S.R
[32]Bhanumathi, K.
[33]State is trying to dilute the spirit of the schedule by proposing amendments to the effect of allowing private mining
[34] [34] Bhanumathi, K.
[35]Pereira, M., (2005),
[36]Ibid.