Indigeneity on the Move. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

      Notes

      1. The film was produced by Survival International, and can be viewed on their website at http://www.survivalinternational.org/films/mine (accessed 11 December 2014).

2. In January 2014, Garo Hills had approximately sixteen militant groups. Although no one could give exact numbers, the general impression was that some of these were very small, almost non-existent. Others supposedly counted several dozen, if not several hundred, men and women. Some of the better-known “underground” groups are the Garo National Liberation Army (GNLA), the A’chik National Liberation Army (ANLA), the Garo Liberation Tigers (GLT), and the A’chik (Garo) Tiger Force (ATF). In 2004 the A’chik National Volunteers Council (ANVC) signed a ceasefire agreement, and is transforming itself into a regular political group. Sections of it have contested local elections as the ANVC-D (Democratic).

3. Coal mining was an important economic activity until early 2014, when the National Green Tribunal (a national Indian Legislative Council) imposed a ban on small-scale unlicensed mining. The ban has been largely successful, and coal mining in the state has mostly come to a halt.

4. Garo social models emphasize kin ties, but it is important to note that kinship is always defined in a broad sense, and thus not limited to relationships defined by “blood.” Rather, kinship provides an encompassing social “grid” that allows people to frame all the relationships that they trace among each other. For instance, Garo traditionally value cross-cousin marriages. Given that kinship is classificatory, who exactly qualifies as cross-cousins is open to interpretation.

5. Garo trace matrilineal descent, and village headmanship is carried over from mother to daughter. The headman title thus rests with the husbands of these successive women. This male entitlement through marriage explains why marriage alliances, that are carried over from various generations, tend to be a central cultural concern (de Maaker 2012).

6. This explains why the boulder principle has also been appropriated to substantiate ethno-nationalist claims. In 1997 in Tura, the largest town of the Garo Hills, a kusi-boulder was erected by its “citizens” (according to the plaquette placed on it). Its planting, in the central area of Ringre, emphasizes that Tura is above all a “Garo” town. Yet historically, Tura has had a largely non-Garo population, created as it was by the former colonial administration, who brought in a lot of Bengali and Assamese, and lately their numbers have been on the rise. As a reaction to this, it seems, Garo indigenous activists want to claim the city as exclusively Garo.

      Bibliography

      A’chik Youth and Cultural Organisation. 2006. Jachang (Calendar). Tura: AYCO.

      Barbora, Sanjay. 2002. “Ethnic Politics and Land Use: Genesis of Conflicts in India’s North-East.” Economic and Political Weekly 37(13): 1285–92.

      Barnard, Alan. 2006. “Kalahari Revisionism, Vienna and the ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Debate.” Social Anthropology 14(1): 1–16.

      Baruah, Sanjib. 2005. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      Bates, Crispin. 1995. “Lost Innocents and the Lost of Innocence: Interpreting Adivasi Movements in South Asia.” In Indigenous Peoples of Asia, eds. R.H. Barnes, Andrew Gray, and Benedict Kingsbury, 103–119. Ann Arbour, MI: Association of Asian Studies.

      Baviskar, Amita. 2006. “The Politics of Being ‘Indigenous’.” In Indigeneity in India, ed. Bengt G. Karlsson and Tanka B. Subba, 33–50. London: Kegan Paul.

      Béteille, André. 1998. “The Idea of Indigenous People.” Current Anthropology 39(2): 187–92.

      Bhaumik, Subir. 2009. Troubled Periphery: The Crisis of India’s North East. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

      Chandra, Uday. 2013. “Beyond Subalternity: Land, Community, and the State in Contemporary Jharkhand.” Contemporary South Asia 21(1): 52–61.

      Conklin, B.A. and L.R. Graham. 1995. “The Shifting Middle Ground: Amazonian Indians and Eco-Politics.” American Anthropologist 97(4): 695–710.

      de Maaker, Erik. 2012. “Negotiations at Death: Assessing Gifts, Mothers and Marriages.” In Negotiating Rites, ed. Ute Hüsken and Frank Neubert, 43–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      ———. 2013a. “Performing the Garo Nation? Garo Wangala Dancing between Faith and Folklore.” Asian Ethnology 72(2): 221–39.

      ———. 2013b. “Have the Mitdes Gone Silent? Conversion, Rhetoric, and the Continuing Importance of the Lower Deities in Northeast India.” In Asia in the Making of Christianity: Conversion, Agency, and Indigeneity, 1600s to the Present, eds. Richard F. Young and Jonathan A. Seitz, 135–162. Leiden: Brill.

      Dove, Michael R. 2006. “Indigenous People and Environmental Politics.” Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 191–208.

      Fernandes, Walter. 2005. “North Eastern India: Land, Identity and Conflicts.” Paper presented at the Silver Jubilee Lecture, 26 August 2004. Allahabad: GB Pant Institute of Social Sciences.

      Havemann, P. 1999. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

      The Hindu. 2013. “The Significance of Niyamgiri.” Retrieved 7 January 2015 from http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/the-significance-of-niyamgiri/article4677438.ece.

      Ingold, Tim. 2011. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon: Routledge.

      Karlsson, Bengt. 2003. “Anthropology and the ‘Indigenous Slot’: Claims to and Debates СКАЧАТЬ