Substack

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Isolation Vs Development debate revisited

This post is controversial, and I confess to being ambiguous about many of the issues raised below.

A weekend at Araku valley near Vizag re-ignited in me the old debate about the extent and type of "development" that tribal areas should be exposed to. Defenders of preserving tribal cultures and lifestyles, oppose the intrusion of all forms of "modernization-driven" development. Modernists get shocked at the primitive conditions in which tribals live and argue in favour of bringing all benefits of modernity and technology to them. A nuanced perpective may be more appropriate and accurate reflection of reality.

The context first. Araku forms part of the Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA) area of Paderu in Vizag district of Andhra Pradesh, and is about 115 km or about 2 hours of breathtaking drive away from Visakhapatnam city. It is a beautiful hill station on the Eastern Ghats and one of the biggest tourist attractions in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Among other spots, it includes the Borra caves, which contains millions of years old stalactite and stalagmite formations inside a massive cavern under the earth's surface.

These areas are governed by the provisions of the Schedule Five of the Indian Constitution, since they are inhabited by tribes needing special protection due to their disadvantageous conditions. The Land Transfer Regulation (LTR) prohibits any transfer of land to a non-tribal, thereby no outsider can own lands in these areas. Despite more than half a century of these regulations, these areas remain as disadvantaged and deprived as they always were. The benevolent state with its numerous welfare measures and protective regulations, have achieved little in relative terms in providing basic facilities like education, health care, nutrition, clean drinking water, and basic sanitation.

But for a few (surprisingly well run) Tourism department and ITDA run tourist entertainment facilities and lodging, Araku resembles any other large Indian village. For a place with such natural beauty, waterfalls, camp-sites and trekking trails, and proximity to a large city like Vizag, Araku is shockingly under-developed. Despite absence of even the most basic tourist facilites, Araku attracts large numbers of tourists, from even outside the State. The comparison between the development of Borra caves and a similar stalagmite and stalactite formation near Washington, the Luray Cavern, or between the Vizag-Araku drive and the Blue Ridge Parkway (in Virginia and North Carolina) could not have been starker.

It is very obvious that these developments can come about only with external private investments. But the LTR explicitly prohibits all such private investments, critical to the development of Araku as a major tourist destination. It is undoubtedly true LTR has protected tribal lands from being bought over or grabbed by non-tribal outsiders (and locals). However, it is debatable as to what extent the local tribals have benefitted from this protection.

The questions that need to be asked are many, and the answers are not simple. Given its well-established potential and demand, isn't it natural that Araku and its tourist attractions should aspire to develop like other similar tourist areas? Does the Government not have the responsibility of putting in place the basic enabling framework of policies that would help Araku leverage its tourism potential for the benefit of its inhabitants? At the same time, shouldn't these policies contain all possible safeguards (with its relative ease of legislation, but difficulty in implementation) to protect the tribal inhabitants from exploitation? Are we not, through blanket regulations like the LTR, denying the tribal inhabitants of Araku, the opportunities (of course, with all its attendant consequences) that come with greater external investments? Have regulations like the LTR outlived its relevance?

What good is the blanket preservtion of a culture, if it comes in the way of a decent livelihood for its followers? Is there any disagreement on the statement that "everybody aspires (or has a right) to a decent livelihood (always a relative term)"? Do we want the tribals to continue to live in their huts in remote locations, without access (or even hope of access in the foreseeable future) to any of the basic facilities that we all take for granted? Are our motivations in protecting tribal cultures and livelihoods dictated by considerations of anthropology or principles of human rights? Are we not preserving tribal cultures in their natural habitats, as some form of "anthropological zoos", so that "we" from the "modernized" world can take weekend trips to educate our children about our origins and the wonders of "modernity"?

On a larger canvas, is it not the responsibility of any democratic government to provide, and the right of its citizens to demand, access to all the available opportunities for their economic and social development? Is it right for the government to make choices on behalf of its citizens? Or do we keep quibbling over what constitutes development?

No comments: