Asian Ethnicity - The dilemmas of pro-development actors

McDuie-Ra 
 Jan 2011 Asian Ethnicity - The dilemmas of pro-development actors viewing state–ethnic minority relations and intra-ethnic dynamics through contentious development projects .
School of Social Sciences and International Studies, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia

• Looks at ethnic minorities that are pro-development. Often it is anti. Looks at intra-ethnic issues, collective agency of ethnic minorities, long term understanding of dev is vital in understanding how ethnic minorities manoeuvre and alter their position on contentious projects.
• Introduction - Affected Citizens of Teesta (ACT) protests against building Dam in Dzongu - seems on surface to be a familiar narative - a vanashing tribe fighting against the state/moderity etc. Anti damn movement was very sucessful. Little attention was given to the anti-damn movement and they were dismissed as minions of the state. This is not fair due to (1) majority of supporters were local ppl (2) supporters wanted to accelerate project and negotiate favourable terms (3) openly clashed around who has the right to represent Lepchas (local ppl). Examining pro-damn network -> (a) look at intra-ethnic rather than state/ethnic (b) removes concept of agency of minority in relation to state and concept of a position (c) Long term experience of development and state is important. (d) Cannot dismiss voices.
• Development and collective agency on the margins - Development shapes state/ethnic relations in a number of ways (1) development viewed as a way of control/coersion - way of controlling, settling, migrating, and modernisation programs. (2) seen as procecss of bringing ethnic minorities into social and cultural realms of the state (3) way that ethnic minorities identities are constructed by the state around dominant group. ie - characterise some as "backward". (4) Development provides a set of opportunities and goods that ethnic groups persue. This is discussed less. Large number of other actors on development – national, local, NGO etc. Responses to development range from resistance to contestation, from avoidance to adaptation.
• Two main concepts – agency (engagement between different groups and individuals in response to opportunities) and contentious politics. Agency further defined as “temporally embedded process informed by past, oriented to future, and present”. Agency is responds to ever changing context. Contentious politics is aimed at collective action directed at state. Question relevant here is how do ethic minorities respond to efforts of the state in terms of long term relations and when visible conflicts take place. The later draws the most interest however this sets up ethnic minorities as having adveserial relations.While sometimes this is eveident empirically it homogenises minorities.  Pro-development ethnic minorities are then not explored. They create complexity as (a) people don’t see them as authentic (b) people believe they are co-opted (c) Moral dilemma that if scholars investigate pro-development minorities it could add legitimacy to position and undermine.
• Lepcha Minority in Skikkim – Lepcha’s were almost wiped out. The Dzongu forest is most sacred area, and a sub-tribe owns the land which is protected via  treaty.         
• Contentious damns in Dzongu – Currently 29 Hydro plants at various stages of imp. EIS did not start until 1990. In 1998 26 companies appointed to build and community consultations started. This is when confrontation began.
• The anti dam movement – Main group was the Affected Citizens of Teesta (ACT). They managed to get 4 dam projects cancelled. On the basis that (1) Effect culture (2) Labourers would impact negatively (3) destroy sacred landscapes (4) damage the environment. ACT mobilesed inspection teams, organised rallies, vocal precence at hearings, entered talks with govt. Two proponents had hunger strike. GOvernement reacted and focused only on the Lepchas with most of the focus on the cultural dimension. The collective agency of Lepcha tribes articulating fragility and growning political streagnth captured media, scholars, activists etc. Divisions started to emerge in 2008 when 500 anti-dam protesters were met by 500 locals claiming they were tunig it into an ethnic issue. The pro-dam were seen as within Dzongu and anti-dam from outside.
• Pro dam groups in Dzogou – Pro-dam groups are a network of NGO’s , Scholars, activists, and media.  Need further analysis due to – (a) it will bear brunt (b) active participants (c) tensions have esculated. Main proponent was  Mutanchi Lom Aal Shezum (MLAS) . They claim that 90% support dam. They make three claims (a) Will provide eco and social dev. MOU was developed that no labourers could stay, priority employment. 5% of profits back to community. Company must reforest, provide free electricity, educational scholarships, new schools, temples and road upgrades. Land owners were offered nine times market value for land needed. No further dams could be considered. (b)Will open up Dzongu. Desire to open up to tourism. MOU has provisions for tourism infrastructure such as hiking routes, homestay and upkeep of temples. Also construction of a museum.  (c) help save not destroy Lepcha culture. Ensuring that Lepcha’s have a future and do not move to towns etc and loose language and culture.
• Reaeding pro dam actors in Dzongu -  Some argued that turning the dam into an ethnic dispute threatened the areas status against the state – from which it turned to for survival. Does not just seem to be about pressure from land owners or elites. Both groups have been accused of being manipulated by party politics. Suppor for the dam comes from a perceived state neglect and perceived lack of dev. The area changed in profile from a profitable cardamom industry in the mainstream cash economy outside tribal  due to decline of crop productivity. The question then becomes how will a dam replace the income of cardomon ? The jobs in the dam for one as stated in the MOU. More likely from tourism, and local commerce. Much of the resentment of the anti-dam movement is that they felt they were being represented by interests outside. This gives them a voice. Felt there was a patronising sense of a passive and primitive Lepcha community that was unable to speak for itself. The supporters of the dam have taken collective agency in bargaining the MOU. It was based on consultation and once agreed it was far easier to garner support. Became a watermarket of communities negotiating with the state. Question remains to be seen is whether it is honoured.
• Conclusion – Provides a different narrative. Further investigation of (1) pro-development actors breaks homogeneity of united front view. As is the case here the pro-dam groups highlights the questions of voice, agency, legitimacy etc. (2) Collective agency is not fixed in particular relationship with the state (3) Long term experience of development and state is crucial (4) Pro-development actors is challenging for analysts as familiar narrative is so compelling. It is hard to give legitimacy to potentially hazardous proponents. In this case there were legitimate concerns on both sides.