Abstract

After India’s Independence, Indian rulers established a regional division of labour, where there were zones of industrialization, green revolution, natural resources and reserves – natural and human. In these reserve areas, the state allowed non-capitalist relations to prevail, so that these reserves could be kept intact or reproduced for their eventual exploitation. In the post-liberalization phase there has been a reckless intensive exploitation of these reserves. Incidentally, many of these reserves lie within tribal areas. Immediately post the adoption of neo liberal policies in 1991, there was intensive exploitation of these reserves lying in and around the central Indian tribal belt. Many of the ‘development projects’ were funded by the International Financial Institutions (IFIs). The North Eastern part of India was a late recipient of IFI aid owing to resistance from local movements, geographical isolation and inadequate infrastructure. It was only after the year 2000 that the IFIs intensified their presence in the North East. This paper contextualizes the entry of IFIs into North East India and highlights the changes that has come about due to it, thereby sketching various interventions that could be undertaken in the newly created socio-political situations

IFIs and the Politics of Aid

International Financial Institutions (IFIs) are multi-lateral development institutions that provide financial support (via grants and loans) to governments and private companies in the developing member countries for economic and social development. International Financial Institutions include public and regional banks like World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank, Japan Development Bank etc. Various countries are shareholders in these institutions and also form a part of the decision making body.

The IFIs mention that they envisage a world without poverty and indicate that the various projects that they fund will enable them to do so. For instance, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) mentions that ‘it is dedicated to improving people’s lives in Asia and the Pacific through targeted investments, in partnership with developing member countries and other stakeholders’. The World Bank (WB) in similar lines mentions that it helps countries in fighting its’ development challenges and combating poverty’.

The IFIs generally provide loan by following a definitive process; facilitated by the receiving governments. The actual project loans are often preceded by preparatory studies mostly known as Technical Assistances (TAs) which are mostly given to study the existing conditions of the sector where the study is being conducted. The TAs mostly conducted by consultants/consulting agencies analyses a sector, identify issues and recommends certain course of action to mitigate the existing problems. The findings of such studies, more often are always similar, and almost all the time suggest for unbundling and enabling access of private participation to address the existing issues. The Project loan follows the TAs, wherein the actual work of ‘mitigating’ the problems identified begins.

IFIs by their very name are different from donor agencies. The former lends money on interest while the latter supports programmes and projects gratis by responding to the needs of the poor and under-developed part of the world. IFIs have a concept of development which is radically different from that of the people’s. Even the goals, purposes, objectives, methodology and expected results are all propelled by profit motives. If they can get by without consulting the local people, they would do it

While the IFIs seeks to eliminate poverty, they are mostly governed by a narrow approach to economic growth, which essentially seeks for privatization, reckless exploitation of natural resources and establishing linkages with the ‘Market’. Both ADB and WB, institutions known for their aggressive push for economic globalization has been ‘preparing’ the NE to create an ‘enabling environment’ for private sector investments and greater exposure to market forces. In all studies or project documents these institutions do not hide their intentions with the claim that the region has lacked development and is ‘poor’ due to lack of private investments and market access.

A critical look at the investment patterns of the IFIs in India clearly proves that a huge amount of loan is being provided to facilitate the entry of private sector in India. Let’s take the example of ADB. India, though the fourth largest stakeholder in ADB, did not access any loans till 1986 (ADB was established in 1966). Since 1986 till the end of 2011, ADB has provided a total number of 178 loans through various projects across sectors like Energy, Health, Transport etc. (See table 1). Out of the total number of loans, most has been provided in the Transport and ICT, Energy and Water Sector. Incidentally, transport enables access to areas and regions for further investment, while the energy and the water sector in various states like Delhi, Assam, Bihar etc are undergoing a process of privatization, leading to unbundling, massive tariff rise and contractualisation of labor. Thus, it can well be understood that the loans benefit no other, but the IFIs themselves.

The IFIs also conduct various studies and are soon becoming sources of ‘knowledge and information’. Through various studies, the set the standards and decides what is ideal for a borrowing government, thereby defining the development prerogatives of a nation. Any form of aid is political and comes with conditions. The IFIs use the loans and TAs as a means to an end. Most of the borrowing countries are instructed to ‘restructure’ to facilitate the entry of the private sector. One of the newest methods of doing it is the recently launched Multi-Tranche facility, wherein the loan is given in various installments (tranche) provided the borrower abides by all the conditions of the preceding tranche.

Table 1: ADB lending in India (1986-2011)

Source: www.adb.org

Thus over the years, it has been found that the IFIs model of development have historically produced enormous debt among developing countries, unfairly favored wealthy and politically powerful elites, and offered few safeguards to protect the environmental, social, and human rights of citizens in the face of large-scale development.

Entry of IFIs and its Implications in India’s North East

For most of its history as part of the Indian ‘nation-state’, the North East region has been at the receiving end of the state’s military might. After a highly contentious record of state-sponsored repression and divisive politics to deal with popular militancy in this region, there is now an added turn in the official attitude towards the region. A particular pattern of economic ‘development’ has been evolving as a way out of the myriad political and socio-economic problems that are visible in the North East. This new developmental thrust began to take shape in the 1980s, getting an even more strident push in the 1990s. This thrust, it must be noted, is governed largely by geo-political, economic and political considerations that the Government of India (GOI) has in its relationship with China, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The GoI has, in the recent years, adopted a more aggressive neo-liberal economic framework and this has led to significant changes in India’s politico-economic structure. The locational advantage of the North East has generated massive interest, especially in need to expand a particular type of trade and investment cooperation between the countries and dominant economic interest of South Asia and South East Asia.

While there was a huge push for capitalistic mode of development post 1991, the North East India saw little infiltration of the LPG model. According to North East People’s Alliance (NE Alliance), it was primarily due to; inter alia, lack of clear perspective of the region and its peoples that can help private investments to enter the region, political uncertainty and instability due to peoples’ movements and the long standing India’s geo-strategic ‘fear’.

The recent entry of the IFIs into India’s North East, facilitated by the GoI is nothing but obvious owing to the geo-political importance of the region. The abundant natural resources and the future prospect of international trade in the Northeast region have led India to formulate a kind of policy to tap this potentiality. At the same time, India’s desire to extend its influence in a region where China is registering rapid growth in both military and economic power has led it to focus on the North East. One of the first attempts to integrate the North East economically was done through the formulation of the ‘Look East Policy’, which was formulated with an objective of forging stronger economic ties with South East Asia. Moreover, by 2000s, systematic studies to understand the North East region had already started to facilitate the entry of IFIs.

The entry of IFIs has radically altered the perception of the North East and has led the Indian Government to re-define it as an area with colorful people and huge economic potential from the former classification of ‘disturbed area’ and not fit for investment. Interesting to note that this also comes at a time, when the GoI has almost completely exhausted the ‘mineral reserves’ in the central Indian belt. Thus, the hunt for further resources along with an aim to show ‘military might’ has led the Indian state to explore areas in the North East. One of the first institutional attempts towards economic integration was the establishment of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (MDONER) in 2004.

The IFIs model of development seldom represents the voices and interest of the tribes. Most of the development agendas are outlined by consultants; who often have little or no knowledge of the socio-political context. These consultants, employed by the IFIs itself, continue to view the tribes as ‘underdeveloped’ and ‘unfortunate’ and provides with recommendations, which are seen as actions towards ‘uplifting the tribes out of their misery’. The recommended actions are often similar and are larger extensions of the IFIs agenda of exploiting the large reserves of resources and enabling private participation.

The resource intensive model of development propagated by the IFIs are increasingly displacing the tribes and pushing them to the further boundaries of poverty. As mentioned above, the IFIs are increasingly interested in building roads and adequate infrastructure which shall not only provide them access to these resources but also enable large scale investment. Thus, the otherwise excluded region of North East is now being increasingly connected to other parts of India and South East India, who now are ready to exploit the huge reserves of resources in the region. Building of large scale dams across Assam and Arunachal to tap the massive hydro-power are evident examples. These dams have not only displaced large number of tribals but have also radically altered their relationship with the eco-system, thereby giving rise to a large number of struggles to protect their land. The tribes, who have till yet been struggling to accept the legitimacy of the Indian statehood are now faced with questions of survival! Therefore, the people of NE today have taken up various forms of struggles to protect their inherent land rights and culture. For example, various organizations like the Takam Mising Porin Kebang (TMPK), All Assam Students Unions (AASU), and Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS) and various other student organizations have joined hands to fight against the construction of the NHPC Dam in Gerukhamukh, Assam. Of the above mentioned organizations, the TMPK was till yet leading a struggle for ‘self determination’ for the Mising tribes; essentially for administrative and territorial rights under the sixth schedule of the Indian constitution. And the All Assam Students organizations viewed the struggle of the former as conflicting to their interests of larger Assamese nation. But the entry of IFIs has led organizations like TMPK to redefine the concept to ‘self determination’ to include survival of the tribe itself in their struggle.

Thus, the whole logic of facilitating the entry of IFIs into the NE region, with an objective of bringing forth development of the region and eradicating poverty falls apart. In fact, it is pushing the tribes further towards poverty and disempowerment in the North East Region.

Indigenising Social Work – Addressing Tribal Issues in the North East

Social workers across the world have always been in horns of a three-pronged dilemma arising from the paradoxical directions or contradictory processes surrounding indigenization, universalism and imperialism in social work. Indigenization essentially refers to the extent to which social work practice fits local contexts. Social work practice is, in turn, shaped by the extent to which local social, political, economic, historical, and cultural factors, as well as local voices, mould and shape social work responses. Universalism refers to trends within social work to find commonalities across divergent contexts such that it is possible to talk about a profession of social work with shared values and goals wherever it is practiced. Imperialism refers to trends within social work promoting the dominance of western worldviews over diverse local and indigenous cultural perspectives.

Addressing the needs of the tribes in North East ardently calls for indigenization/redefinition of social work to include tribal social work. The need to redefine becomes intensified because social work education in India is still dominated by western discourses. In fact, social work professionals in India, often lacks the appropriate skills and training to address the issues of the tribes. Botcha R, (2012) argues that one of the major shortcomings of social work education in India is its inability to sufficiently indigenize its knowledge-base. The basic teaching material with respect to interventionist methods (the holy trinity of social case work, social group work and community organization) is still primarily American. He further mentions that many of the problems that are identified as problems of the socially oppressed and economically deprived sections cannot be called adjustmental problems. Thus, there is an increased need to indigenize the social work knowledge rather than continuing with the borrowed methods of social work practice.

The tribes in North eastern part of India are faced with diverse challenges in the modern day. According to Bodhi S.R (2012), “On one hand, there are forces of assimilation, mainstreaming or co-option, such as Hinduisation, westernization and peasantisation operating on them at a rapid and massive scale. On the other hand is the massive deployment of state forces to facilitate their ‘willing acceptance’ of the indomitable ‘nation state’ – premised in a frame of integration, inclusion or affiliation which is coupled with an understated and hidden neo-liberal agenda, compelling them to operate within the Nation State’s bounded, autonomous and rigid political boundaries. Squeezed between these determined alternating resolute forces, closing in and suffocating them from all ends, the Tribes have responded differently to each of these forces, operating individually and in combination. While some of their responses have been within the realm of the socio-religious and socio-cultural, some have been within the socio-political and politico-economic domain. Interestingly, central to the formulation and articulation of these organic tribal resistances, is the overt, yet subtle, pulsating endogenous need to differentiate them from the ‘other’ and to protect and preserve their critical geopolitical and social spaces, with respect to their territory, culture and politics.

In addition to these diverse realities, the entry of IFIs into the region has added on to the woes to the people of North East. It has not only displaced millions of people, but has also altered the existing relations of tribes with the eco-systems. The tribes continue to fight for their rights to land, forest, culture, identity and above all for survival itself. The IFIs continues to indiscriminately exploit the natural resources, displace people through their so called development projects. Diverse issues arising out of the entry of the IFIs and more, need to be addressed. But it shall a clear understanding of the existing context and the diverse realities of the region.

Fighting Homogenization : A professional social worker in North East India will face diverse form of dilemmas and will have to choose between, tribal rights to self determination v/s the legitimacy of Indian State, integration v/s isolation and tribal identity v/s blanket nationalism etc. Any attempt to work with tribes in the North East will need to fight any forms of homogenization and an understanding that the realities of the North East is essentially different from that of others existing in India. Moreover, there are multiple layers of diversity within the 145 tribes, who by themselves have distinct culture, tradition and history, which cannot be ignored. The reason behind the legitimization of draconian acts like Arm Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) and bringing in of the more military in the region lies from the classification of the North East as essentially ‘Disturbed’. It fails to recognize the reasons behind the resistant struggles and view any form of militancy as ‘security threat’, rather than understanding the socio-economic roots. Thus, accepting this blatant classification would mean intensifying the problem rather than solving it.

Putting People First : Most of the development projects, be it by the GoI or the IFIs view the tribes as merely recipients rather than partners. They neither recognize the tribes as stakeholders nor show any commitment to bring forth their participation, even though the project areas are in the region the tribes reside. While the IFIs continue shouting the rhetoric of sustainable people’s friendly development aloud, there is very little commitment to actually implement them. Moreover, they violate their own policies and standards by not accepting the people as stakeholders. The development projects are seen as charity to the people of the North East which are being implemented to uplift them from misery and integrate them into the mainstream India. Therefore any social work intervention should first view the tribes as empowered people, who can make their own decisions. It should put the tribes at the top most priority and seek to secure their rights, by clearly understanding the reasons behind their agonies. The tribes should be recognized as partners and should be consulted at every step; planning, designing and in the final execution of the projects.

Locating Tribes within the Larger Northeastern and Indian Reality: The Northeastern region has emerged as the favorite destination for the IFIs mainly due to two reasons; firstly because the region holds enormous reserves of natural resources which is yet to exploited and secondly due to its increased geo-political importance. The rising importance being awarded to the region is due to its proximity to the South East Asia and Chinese increasing influence. Facilitation of projects has like the World Bank funded 1360 kilometer Trans Asian Highway to link India, Myanmar and Thailand and Mekong Ganga Cooperation etc. are a few of the many initiatives to link this region with other parts of Asia. This increased access has the potential to harm the traditional rights of the tribes residing in this region. Thus, there is need to increasingly engage with IFIs and GoI and to strongly advocate for protection of tribal rights.

In addition, there also is a need to recognize the indigenous-non-indigenous between various ethnic groups in the northeast. Again, the tension between indigenous groups and outsiders is an important theme understanding the politics of the area.

Non-criminalization of Resistance: The process of integration of the Northeastern states into India was non-consensual. While many radical groups are battling against the Indian nation state, many of the tribes are fighting for larger representation within the democratic apparatus of the state. Any form of militancy within these movements is seen as a threat to the Indian statehood and the govt. adopts extreme repression to curb this ‘acts of terrorism’. Criminalization of these resistance movements without understanding the contextual realities might have the potential of taking us away from the people’s agenda and making our intervention obsolete.

Culturally accepted development: The tribes of the North East have historically been governed by their local structures and knowledge systems, formed over their years as a result of their continuous interactions with their eco-systems. The tribes accord status of high respect to nature, rivers and the mountains and have been preserving them for ages. The capitalistic mode of production and development does not recognize this ago-old relationship and fiercely propagates for project mode of development. The tribes are extremely proud people who have always believed in free and judicious use of its nearby resources. Thus, they rise up in revolt against this oppressive mode of development.

Taking the Human rights perspective: A capitalistic mode of development that is being propagated by the IFIs raises the very pertinent debate of Resource v/s human. The current model views the tribal areas as merely resources and pays no heed to humane aspects of it. The tribes are blatantly disposed off from their habitats, without making adequate arrangement for resettlement. The ILO convention 169 identifies, that indigenous and tribal peoples’ cultures and identities form an integral part of their lives. Their ways of life, customs and traditions, institutions, customary laws, forms of land use and forms of social organization are usually different from those of the dominant population. Thus, it mentions that they be consulted before any development projects be approved and also can set their own development agendas. But the IFIs continue to violate these laws, under the aegis of GoI. The term ‘common good’ under the land acquisition act of Indian government is being exploited to suit the interests of the IFIs and displace the tribes. Thus, any intervention from a SW practitioner should try to facilitate in reclaiming these rights of the tribals and not otherwise.

Concluding Remarks

In this article, I have sought to describe the various socio-political changes that have come about in the North East India after the entry of IFIs and then go on to outlining a few actions that can be undertaken to address those issues. I argue that the entry of IFIs into the region has led to further alienation of the north eastern tribes and have given rise to increased number of movements. The development process is not only insensitive to the rights of the tribes but is also dangerously unsustainable which puts a question mark into the survival of the tribes itself. There is a clear need to understand these changes, keep track of them and reverse them and adopt a development agenda which is respectful of the sentiments of the tribes and is determined by the people themselves.

www.adb.org

www.worldbank.org

http://nealliance.net/ifis/international-finance-in-north-east-india-fuelling-a-new-colonization/ Wangkheirakpam R & Yumnam J (2006), ‘Insidious Financial Intrusions in India’s North East’; Intercultural Resources, New Delhi

http://nealliance.net/ifis/international-finance-in-north-east-india-fuelling-a-new-colonization/

Dr. Rajeev K, NE India: A corridor to East and South East Asia; http://epao.net/epPageExtractor.asp?src=travel.A_corridor_to_east_and_south_east_asia.html

Gray M, (2005); ‘Dilemmas of international social work: Paradoxical processes in Indigenization, Universalism and Imperialism’ International Journal of Social Welfare, 14(2), 230-237

The History of Dalit and Tribal Social Work-Interview with Bodhi SR, by Nilesh Kumar Thool, Indian Journal of Dalit and Tribal Social Work, Vol. 1, Int No.1, December 2012, pp. 91-102, Daltri Journals, daltrijournals.org, (ISSN 2320-2130)