South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies - Crawford School of

This article was downloaded by:[Australian National University Library] On: 1 August 2007 Access Details: [subscription number 773444841] Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713445348

'Like the Drifting Grains of Sand': Vulnerability, Security and Adjustment by Communities in the Charlands of the Damodar River, India Online Publication Date: 01 August 2007 To cite this Article: Lahiri-Dutt, Kuntala and Samanta, Gopa (2007) ''Like the Drifting Grains of Sand': Vulnerability, Security and Adjustment by Communities in the Charlands of the Damodar River, India', South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 30:2, 327 - 350 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/00856400701499268 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00856400701499268

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. © Taylor and Francis 2007

Downloaded By: [Australian National University Library] At: 16:19 1 August 2007

South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, n.s., Vol.XXX, no.2, August 2007

‘Like the Drifting Grains of Sand’:1 Vulnerability, Security and Adjustment by Communities in the Charlands of the Damodar River, India Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Australian National University and Gopa Samanta, Mankar College, Burdwan

Abstract Charlands are islands formed in major river systems particularly in the flat deltaic plains such as those in the Bengal delta in eastern India and Bangladesh. The charlands in the lower reaches of the Damodar River in India are prone to frequent floods, shifting river channels and consequent riverbank erosion. In spite of these risks posed by the environment, migrant communities from Bihar and Bangladesh settle in the charlands because the soils are fertile, and because being untitled, they are relatively cheaper than legal lands. This paper explores the mental maps or perceptions that the chouras—the charland inhabitants—have of their places of living. We ask: How do the chouras see their fragile environment? Our findings are as follows: first of all, we agree that the perceptions of vulnerability and insecurity are subjective, and may differ widely between different communities or groups living in the charlands. Secondly, we note that ‘adaptation’ might be too broad a term; the specific process is more contingent than a long-term adaptation and best described as ‘adjustment’. Finally, we note that in light of our study into the livelihoods that people keep pursuing in marginal environments such as that of chars, a felt need has arisen to redefine categories such as ‘resilience’, ‘vulnerability’ or ‘security’. Where the Land Floats on Water: Charlands Near their mouths many rivers do not follow the same course for more than a couple of decades, and areas that are continually subject to water logging turn into a maze of We would like to thank Dr. David Williams for his kind editorial work on the paper. Dr. Ruchira Ganguly-Scrase’s and Dr. Kalpana Ram’s comments at the 2004 Women in Asia conference were helpful in crystallising some of our thoughts. The review comments of anonymous referees were also helpful in improving the structure of the paper. 1 Quote from our informant Naren Sarkar. ISSN 0085-6401 print; 1479-0270 online/07/020327-23 # 2007 South Asian Studies Association of Australia DOI: 10.1080/00856400701499268


328

SOUTH ASIA

moribund channels criss-crossing each other as the delta-building moves on. The rivers in such situations constantly create charlands. The charlands (called diara in the upper reaches of the Gangetic plains) are virgin, low-lying river islands and sand bars occurring in the plains, particularly the deltaic parts, of rivers. They are exposed and repeatedly affected by frequent floods, shifting river channels and riverbank erosion. Consequently they may get washed away overnight by the changing river currents. This transitional, fragile nature of the physical environment makes chars risky and disaster-prone as human habitats. And newly-formed charlands are even more vulnerable than the older-established ones. The silty and sandy chars are literally on the margins of land and water worlds, ‘edges’ where earth and water ecologies and cultures meet on the fringe of human habitation. The human use of these borderline lands throws up a rich reservoir of metaphors (such as the ‘edge effect’ of ‘the bringing together of people, ideas and institutions’ described by McCay2), unique questions of environmental dynamics and management,3 and debates around resilience and adaptation. We are particularly interested in the last of these, and intend to examine poor people’s resilience to marginal and vulnerable environments. Poverty and lack of choice provides the overall backdrop of our study; the fragility inherent in the physical characteristics or the ecology of char formation leads to persistent poverty in these charlands which in turn provide the opportunity to acquire deeper insights into what we mean by the terms such as ‘vulnerability’, ‘resilience’ and ‘adaptation’. The studies of Chambers and Conway,4 Wisner,5 and Ashley et al. 6 conclude that, although the nature and causes of poverty in the charlands are complex and interlinked, the root causes of poverty and vulnerability are often identical and usually overlap. A large number of people live in chars all over the world, especially in the flat plains of developing countries of Asia such as in eastern India and Bangladesh.7 To live in this hostile environment, people are obliged to take risks and 2

B. McCay, ‘Edges, Fields and Regions’, in The Common Property Digest, Vol.54 (2000), pp.6–8. CEGIS (Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Service), Riverine Chars in Bangladesh: Environment Dynamics and Management Issues (Dhaka: The University Press Limited, 2000); and M.H. Sarker, Iffat Huque and M. Alam, ‘Rivers, Chars and Char Dwellers of Bangladesh’, in International Journal of River Basin Management, Vol.1, no.1 (2003), pp.61–80 [http://www.jrbm.net/pages/archives/JRBMn1/Sarker.PDF]. 4 R. Chambers and G. Conway, ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century’, Discussion Paper No. 296 (Brighton, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies, 1991). 5 B. Wisner, ‘Sustainable Suffering? Reflections on Development and Disaster Vulnerability in the PostJohannesburg World’, in Regional Development Dialogue, Vol.24, no.1 (2003), pp.135–48. 6 Steve Ashley, Kamal Kar, Abul Hossain and Shibabaata Nandi, ‘The Chars Livelihood Assistance Scoping Study’, Documents of Chars Livelihoods Assistance Project (Dhaka: DFID (Department for International Development), 2003). 7 Sarker et al. note that in Bangladesh alone, about 600,000 people live on chars. In India, no such major study has been undertaken yet to give a reliable estimate of the numbers involved. However, the figure would be much higher than in Bangladesh, especially if those people living within the embankments along the rivers are taken into account. 3


‘LIKE THE DRIFTING GRAINS

OF

SAND’

329

have to develop their livelihoods in such ways as to be able to cope with the river’s moods, a process evocatively described as ‘dancing with the rivers’.8 This continual adjustment—‘rising above’ the traumatic and difficult circumstances posed by a hostile environment—brings us to a rethinking of the concepts of ‘adaptation’ and ‘resilience’ of human communities.9 The ability of chouras (the people living on the chars) to adjust to what is commonly seen as an insecure environment offers a problematic worth investigating. The enquiry reported in this paper began with a set of questions about the perceptions people might have of the charland as a secure place of residence. These questions are: why do peoples live in the marginal environment of chars in spite of immense insecurity? How much choice do they have in selecting a place to live? Do the chouras see the charlands as a permanent location or do they use them as a stepping-stone to move on to other places? What insights can we get on the perceptions of charland dwellers of their environment? And above all, what lessons can we learn from the charlands and the communities living on them? In attempting to seek answers to these questions, our local-level case study helped us to redefine the concepts of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘resilience’ according to the perceptions of, and meanings derived by, the local residents. Many years ago, a geographer asked: ‘Why do people live on flood plains?’10 Even now, we keep asking similar questions,11 though our theoretical standpoint has changed over time with greater insights into human behaviour. How individuals sort through a maze of environmental constraints and opportunities to make decisions is now better understood through the lens of subjective perceptions and choices, rather than within a framework of rigid group behaviour. Consequently, our study examined the perceptions of environmental security through the looking glass of individual life histories of some charlands dwellers in the Damodar River in the lower part of deltaic Bengal. The specific and complex geography of the However, one must remember that this is a ‘floating’ population, and hence these numbers are no more than (informed) guesstimates. See Sarker et al., ‘Rivers, Chars and Char Dwellers of Bangladesh’, p.61. 8 Gilles Saussier, Living in the Fringe (Paris: Figura Association, 1998). 9 These are catchwords of the day, often seen from the positivist angle, dealing with the issues of resilience and sustainable development, and aiming to build ‘adaptive capacity’ amongst human communities or even ecological systems or a ‘resilience framework’ linking social and ecological systems. 10 R.W. Kates, Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management (Chicago: Department of Geography, Research Paper 78, University of Chicago, 1962). 11 For example, the vulnerability and adaptation (V & A) guidelines formulated by the IPCC, UNEP & USCSP for fulfilling the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) core focus, have highlighted the need to know the autonomous adaptation mechanisms in the various sectors of a society such as different classes or social groups. Another study by the U.S. Country Studies Program (USCSP), in collaboration with the Government of Bangladesh, has located vulnerability and adaptation of humans to environmental changes in various sectors. See J.B. Smith, S. Huq, S. Lenhart, L.J. Mata, I. Nemesova and S. Toure (eds), Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change: Interim Results from the U.S. Country Studies Program (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996).


330

SOUTH ASIA

place forming the context of livelihoods, and the specific cultural backgrounds of two main communities living there, gave us new insights on popularly-debated concepts such as adjustment, adaptation and resilience.12 Charlands are known by various technical names such as ‘bars’, ‘river islands’ and ‘slough’.13 The use of charlands or similar wetland habitats by people varies widely from country to country. In the developed world, river islands provide areas of unique and rare plants and wildlife and are ideal locations for environmental protection. Such areas are often used for public recreational activities like boating, fishing and game hunting. Against this, the chars in the Pjang River on the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan provide shelter to the ‘lost people’—stranded Afghan refugees of many ethnic backgrounds who were ‘rediscovered’ by the wider humanitarian and media world.14 Awareness of the river islands and sandbars as locations of human habitations has so far been restricted; however, millions of people in low-lying parts of developing countries such as those in the Bengal delta use the charlands as habitats.15 Perhaps the best-known example of charlands in South Asia is the Bengal delta, created by river-borne silt from the Himalayas. Bhattacharyya’s 1998 research shows how in recent times decreased flooding has led to increasing ‘colonisation’ of the sandbars in the Lower Damodar River, one of the several major waterways that feed the delta. Further east, the chars of Bangladesh have been at the epicentre of resource management and policy debates because of the importance of the riparian zones to the country’s life and economy.16 According to Baqee, the pioneer of research into the human occupancy of Bangladeshi chars, they house ‘some of the most desperate people in the country’17 who, in their risk-adopting activity, have developed a distinct sub-culture different from the ways of the people living on

12

Please note that in this paper we do not deal with the reasons why Bangladeshi unauthorised migrants are here. For a geomorphological interpretation of these landmasses see M. Morisawa, Rivers: Form and Process (London: Longman, 1985); and R.J. Chorley, S.A. Schumm and D.E. Sugden, Geomorphology (London: Methuen, 1984). 14 See http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/rights/articles/eav100101.shtml#. 15 Saussier elaborates on how char people in Bangladesh even retain property title deeds and pay taxes for lands under water with the hope of cultivating it again, once the island re-emerges: ‘Land is fresh and fertile on the char. The harvest is better than on the mainland. . . . Apart from the cyclones, life is sweet on the chars’. Saussier, Living in the Fringe, p.20. 16 Mahajabeen Chowdhury, ‘Women’s Technological Innovations and Adaptations for Disaster Mitigation: A Case Study of Charlands in Bangladesh’, Expert Group Meeting on Environmental Management and the Mitigation of Natural Disasters: A Gender Perspective, Ankara, 6– 9 November 2001. 17 Abdul Baqee, Peopling in the Land of Allah Jaane: Power, Peopling and Environment, the Case of Charlands of Bangladesh (Dhaka: The University Press Limited, 1998), p.1. 13



OF

SAND’

331

the mainland.18 In the Lower Damodar Valley, an area with relatively high agricultural prosperity and high urbanisation, the shifting charlands and their communities remain largely invisible to the mainstream/mainland economy and society.19

Vulnerability and Its Dimensions Let us first clarify our understanding of vulnerability. Wisner defines it as the ‘likelihood of injury, death, loss, disruption of livelihood or other harm in an extreme event, and/or unusual difficulties in recovering from such effects’.20 The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) defines it as ‘a set of conditions and processes resulting from physical, social and environmental factors, which increases the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards’.21 The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) sees vulnerability as a human condition or process ‘resulting from physical, social and environmental factors, which determines the likelihood and scale of damage from the impact of a given hazard’.22 Schjolden defines vulnerability as the degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse effects of natural disasters.23 According to Blaikie et al., vulnerability can be measured by the capacity of a person or group to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a particular natural hazard.24 Thus, vulnerability represents the interface between exposure to physical threats and the capacity of people and communities to cope with those threats. Threats may arise from a combination of social and physical processes. The most conspicuous and widely-reported manifestation of this vulnerability is when people are affected—suddenly and violently—by natural hazards. Vulnerability arising from natural hazards has multiple facets. Bohle introduced an external (environmental) and internal (human) side of vulnerability in his remarkable study on land degradation and human security. He clearly identified vulnerability as a potentially detrimental social response to environmental events 18 M.Q. Zaman, ‘The Social and Political Context of Adjustment to Riverbank Erosion Hazard and Population Resettlement in Bangladesh’, in Human Organization, Vol.48, no.3 (1989), p.197. 19 Both of us did our Doctoral research on the region’s urbanisation and rural-urban interactions. 20 B. Wisner, ‘Who? What? Where? When? in an Emergency: Notes on Possible Indicators of Vulnerability and Resilience by Phase of the Disaster Management Cycle and Social Actor,’ in E. Plate (ed.), Environment and Human Security: Contribution to a Workshop in Bonn (23– 25 October 2002). 21 ISDR/UN/WMO, Water and Disaster: Be Informed and Be Prepared (Geneva: WMO Publication No.971, 2004). 22 UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development (New York: Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, 2004). 23 Ane Schjolden, ‘Are Vulnerability and Adaptability Two Sides of the Same Coin?’, in IHDP Newsletter, No.4 (2003), pp.12–14. 24 Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon, Ian Davis and Ben Wisner, At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters (London: Routledge, 1994), pp.8–9.


332

SOUTH ASIA

and changes.25 Thus vulnerability covers a broad range of possible harms and consequences; it implies, too, relatively long time periods, certainly exceeding the timeframe of the extreme event that triggered it. This interpretation of vulnerability is unavoidably related to resilience.26 Through this broad framework, the meaning of vulnerability has expanded to include the notions of risk, impact, adaptability and environmental justice.27 Yet following Kelly and Adger,28 O’Brien et al. emphasise the subjectivity inherent in the interpretation of environmental elements: In a field where scientists are simultaneously working to determine the nature and extent of the problem, identify the consequences and address it politically, vulnerability serves as a flexible and somewhat malleable concept that can engage both research and policy communities.... On the one hand, vulnerability is sometimes viewed as an end point—that is, as a residual of climate change impacts minus adaptation. Here vulnerability represents the net impacts of climate change; it serves as a means of defining the extent of the climate problem and providing input into policy decisions regarding the cost of climate change versus costs related to greenhouse gas mitigation efforts. On the other hand, it is sometimes viewed as a starting point, where vulnerability is a characteristic or a state generated by multiple environmental and social processes, but exacerbated by climate change. In this case, vulnerability provides a means of understanding how the impacts of climate change will be distributed primarily to identify how vulnerability can be reduced.29 Environmental security is about safeguarding human communities from ‘critical pervasive threats’30 such as violent conflicts, water shortages, chronic destitution or pollution. Many of these threats, if they occur as surprise events, can indeed be destructive. The objective of human security is to guarantee a set of vital 25 H.G. Bohle, ‘Land Degradation and Human Security’, paper presented at an international workshop on Environment and Human Security, Bonn, 2002. 26 J.J. Bogardi, ‘Hazards, Risk and Vulnerability: A New Look on the Flood Plains’, Proceedings, international workshop on Water Hazards and Risk Management, Tsukuba, 20– 22 January 2004. 27 See for example Heather A. Smith, ‘Facing Environmental Security’, in Journal of Military and Strategic Studies (Winter 2000/Spring 2001) [http://www.jmss.org/2001/article3.html, accessed 1 Feb. 2007]; and J. Ikeme, ‘Equity, Environmental Justice and Sustainability: Incomplete Approaches in Climatic Changes Politics’, in Global Environmental Change, Vol.13 (2003), pp.195–206. 28 P.M. Kelly and W.N. Adger, ‘Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation’, in Climatic Change, Vol.47, no.4 (2000), pp.325– 52. 29 Karen O’Brien, Siri Eriksen, Ane Schjolden and Lynn Nygaard, Whats in a Word? Conflicting Interpretations of Vulnerability in Climate Change Research, Working Paper No.2004:04 (Blinden, Norway: Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, 2004), p.1. 30 Sabina Alkire, ‘Conceptual Framework for Human Security’, in Excerpt from Working Definition and Executive Summary: Report of the Commission on Human Security (New York: CHS Secretariat, 2002).



OF

SAND’

333

rights and freedoms for everyone in a way that is consistent with other life goals.31 The human security approach, important since the 1990s, encourages the safeguarding and protection of communities in the face of sudden and recurrent natural events such as flooding and riverbank erosion. Pro-security measures are institutionalised, not episodic; responsive, not rigid; and are preventative, not reactive. This implies that the interface between people and environmental change does not necessarily endanger human well-being; that groups are not wiped out completely, displaced or dislocated from their livelihood bases. Environmental security usually neglects to recognise the subjectivity factor,32 and tends to take human knowledge of the environment as neutral, objective and absolute. However some social scientists have highlighted the social constructions of the environment that reflect inherent power differentials in society.33 We place our study in the context of this genre of critical theory.34 Human exposure to environmental threats is not evenly distributed over the earth’s surface. Many thousands of people live in places with inherent risk such as the riverine islands and floodplains, slopes of volcanoes, earthquake zones, and low-lying coastal areas. Sometimes people are forced to live in such highly vulnerable environments because of social, economic and political factors, including acute poverty, development or war-related displacement. Again, people may also choose to live in what might be seen by others as vulnerable and insecure environments. For example, floodplains have always been favoured for settlement because of the fertility of the soil or the plentiful availability of flat land. As populations grow and there is more competition for limited land and its resources, areas of increasing vulnerability are settled by refugees, migrants and other displaced groups. Such settlers expose themselves by occupying the areas of high risk and potential loss of livelihoods. With vulnerability is associated risk (the possibility of lives lost; persons injured; damage to property and disruption of economic activity and livelihood).35 Thus risk is a function of the probability of particular occurrences and the losses each might cause. Some people are clearly more prone than others to damage, loss and 31

Amartya Sen, ‘Why Human Security’, Text of Presentation at the International Symposium on Human Security in Tokyo, 28 July 2000 [http://www.humansecurity-chs.org/activities/outreach/Sen2000.pdf]. 32 Smith, ‘Facing Environmental Security’. 33 See for example Arun Agrawal and K. Sivaramakrishnan, Social Nature: Resources, Representations and Rule in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001). 34 For a detailed discussion of such concepts see Andrew Linklater, ‘The Achievement of Critical Theory’, in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996); and George C. Bond and Angela Gilliam, Social Reconstruction of the Past: Representation as Power (London: Routledge, 1994). 35 Blaikie et al., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters.


334

SOUTH ASIA

suffering. Economically better-off people are better protected, being often insured against damage; and their homes are usually safely-sited, making the process of recovery easier. The most vulnerable people are those who find it hardest to reconstruct their livelihoods. All over the world, but especially in poorer countries, vulnerable people often suffer repeated, multiple, mutually-reinforcing shocks to their lives, their settlements and their livelihoods. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that developing countries, particularly the least developed, are more vulnerable to environmental threats, and that this inability is most extreme among the poorest people and disadvantaged groups such as women and children.36 Thus the importance of the human and social context can never be ignored, as Blaikie et al. note: There is a general consensus in research on disasters that the number of natural hazard events (earthquakes, eruptions, floods, or cyclones) has not increased in recent decades. If this is valid, then we need to look at social factors that increase vulnerability (including, but not only, increasing population) to explain the apparent increases in the number of disasters, in the value of losses and numbers of victims.37 Alternatively, experts such as Schjolden have seen increasing adaptive capacity is the key strategy to cope with vulnerability.38 However, there are great semantic variations in this line of thinking; for example, Anderson and Woodrow prefer the term ‘capability’, by which they mean a capability to protect one’s community, home and family and to re-establish one’s livelihood. Anderson and Woodward also show that people living in vulnerable environments can enhance their adaptive capacity—or capability—through building infrastructure and improving social awareness and preparedness—an observation that implies that the ability to adjust and cope is not necessarily related to economic status.39 Following Cutter et al., three specific approaches can be outlined in environmental security and vulnerability studies: those dealing with the identification of conditions that make people or places vulnerable to extreme natural events; those assuming that vulnerability is a social condition, a measure of societal resistance or resilience to hazards; and those that 36

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), ‘Summary for Policy Makers’, in Third Assessment Report— Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Geneva: World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme ISDR, 2001) [http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/]. 37 Blaikie et al., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, p.31. 38 Schjolden, ‘Are Vulnerability and Adaptability Two Sides of the Same Coin?’, pp.12–14. 39 M.B. Anderson and P.J. Woodrow, Rising from the Ashes: Development Strategies in Times of Disaster (Colorado: Westview Press, 1989).



OF

SAND’

335

integrate potential exposures and societal resilience with a specific focus on particular places or regions.40 The second approach has been followed by Blaikie et al. and Hewitt, and in our research we choose to follow this line of argument to understand the social conditions, perceptions and the adjustment processes in the Damodar charlands.41 We note the absence of long-term measures amongst the charland people, and following Haw et al. attempt to differentiate between ‘adjustment’—that is, action on a contingent basis to cope with emergencies as they occur—and ‘adaptation’—that is, long-term strategies to reduce flood frequency or other environmental risks.42

The Damodar River and its Chars The Damodar is an important river of the Bengal delta that affects the wellbeing of a sizeable fraction of the Indian population. It flows through the eastern Indian states of Bihar and West Bengal, across the coal and steel belt, its basin comprising nearly 25,000 square kilometres. The 540 kilometre-long river eventually meets the Hooghly, a distributary of the Ganga River, near Falta point in Howrah district. The river has been notorious for changing courses and has created an inland delta of sorts through its innumerable distributaries.43 The upper and lower reaches of the Damodar have contrasting ecological characteristics. The upper valley has a rugged relief with high slopes covered with forests and scrub jungles, and terraced, cultivated fields. The lower valley on the other hand is nearly flat, even bowl-like. Mukherjee in his 1938 work on the Bengal delta noted that this particular deltaic stretch had an unusual concentration of small farmers and settlements. This feature has been enhanced in the recent decades.44 The physical environment of the Damodar delta has undergone considerable changes since late colonial times when imported civil engineering techniques began to replace traditional irrigation. The first phase saw the construction in 1881 of Anderson Weir at Rhondia (located some distance west of Burdwan), and the Eden Canal to carry its water to the lower agricultural fields. Later, the Maharaja of Burdwan built embankments along the course of the river to contain its floods, and then in 40

Susan L. Cutter, Bryan J. Boruff and W. Lynn Shirley, ‘Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards’, in Social Science Quarterly, Vol.84, no.2 (2003), pp.242–61. 41 Blaikie et al., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters; and K. Hewitt, Regions of Risk: A Geographical Introduction to Disasters (Harlow, Essex: Longman, 1997). 42 Melissa Haw, Chris Cocklin and David Mercer, ‘A Pinch of Salt: Landowner Perception and Adjustment to the Salinity Hazard in Victoria, Australia’, in Journal of Rural Studies, Vol.16 (2000), pp.155– 69. 43 Kanangopal Bagchi, The Ganges Delta (Calcutta: Calcutta University, 1994). 44 R. Mukherjee, The Changing Face of Bengal: A Study in Riverine Economy (Calcutta: Calcutta University Press, 1938).


336

SOUTH ASIA

the early 1950s the Damodar Valley Corporation or DVC constructed dams and brought its canals through the region.45 The DVC dams were only partially successful in reducing the frequency of floods and providing irrigation water through the canal network to agricultural fields.46 However, the intervention brought several changes in the physical environment to the lower reaches of the valley. The clearing of extensive natural forests in the upper catchments areas for the construction of the reservoirs resulted in increased siltation rates and the formation of more permanent chars on the riverbed. And while flooding in the lower reaches of the Damodar’s valley has been reduced, low-intensity floods have become longer in duration. Moreover, when they do occur in the Lower Damodar Valley, floods now dump coarse sand, destroying the fertility of cultivated lands. Also, the behaviour of the river has become more unpredictable: large chunks of fertile agricultural land are eroded by its currents every year. The current physical character of the Damodar chars, therefore, is somewhat different from other chars located in the active delta areas of the Ganga–Padma and other rivers in deltaic Bengal. Being more permanent in nature, Damodar chars do not experience the regular and annual flooding characteristic of the active delta chars of Bangladesh. However more devastating and longer-duration floods can and do occur—such as in 1978 and 2000. As the nature of floods have become variable in the Lower Damodar Valley, the ways in which local people have traditionally dealt with them, too, have become ineffective and have had to be modified. Related closely to the history of river control is the story of how the Damodar chars came to be occupied. This process began in the late nineteenth century when groups of Muslim fishermen migrated from Bihar to these riverine locations. Bihari Muslims were initially employed as village watchmen and gatekeepers by the Burdwan rajas and were allotted land in the chars by way of payment. Besides fishing, they reared some cattle. Yet, unused to farming, they did not try to cultivate the chars which at that time were mostly covered by bush, plum trees and tall bena grass. Small amounts of mesta (a variety of jute which is red in colour and grows without much water and nourishment), maize (corn) and pulses were the only crops. Population remained sparse, and floods were a regular visitor during the monsoons. After Partition, Bangladeshi (then East Pakistan) Hindus started to trickle into this part of India in search of livelihoods and social security. Lacking legal owners, 45

Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, ‘Imagining Rivers’, in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.35, no.27 (2000), pp.2395–400. Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, ‘People, Power and Rivers: Experiences from the Damodar River, India’, in Water Nepal, Vols.9/10, nos.1 & 2 (2003), pp.251–67.

46



OF

SAND’

337

the charlands were designated by the government as khaslands,47 and deemed available for the resettlement of the refugees. Some (but not all) the grantees were given patta (title deeds)48 to their new homes. However, the shifting river courses made charlands highly insecure; considerable stretches of charlands have since reverted to riverbed, whereas some new lands have emerged from the riverbed, and again considerable stretches of the river channel have been converted into seasonal croplands by the char people. The settlement process in charlands gained pace after the 1971 Bangladesh liberation movement, leading to a significant increase in the flow of migrants into southern West Bengal across the Bangladesh border. A large segment of these migrants are unauthorised and have no citizenship papers.49 Presently Bangladeshi migrants form the dominant group in all charlands; the earlier Bihari settlers are gradually being marginalised. For example, in Char Gaitanpur there are 205 families of which 65 are Bihari fishermen-turned-labourers, whereas 140 families are from Bangladesh. The Bihari fishermen who are left make a living either as wage labourers in the agricultural fields or work for contractors lifting sand from the riverbed. Industrial waste pollution of the river water from the expanding collieries and industries in the upper reaches of the Damodar have added to this change in subsistence. Not only has there been a drastic reduction in water levels but industrial and urban liquid wastes have reduced biotic life, causing a loss of livelihood for the Bihari fishermen. The relief variations in the chars dictate the pattern of land utilisation. Higher lands are occupied by houses, and the more marginal lower lands are used for cultivation. Reclamation is ongoing. Barren sand fields are steadily converted into croplands through bio-manuring and hard labour. During our field survey, we saw over two acres of sandy land reclaimed for crop production in a single char within a tenmonth period. But the sandy soil drains rapidly and requires large quantities of water for the production of any crop; the water requirement is even higher for paddy and only those owning shallow and submersible pumps can tap the 47 Khaslands are new lands coming under government control. A piece of land has to be in existence for at least 20 years on a continuous basis before it can be legally designated as ‘land’. Thus, many charlands are non-lands, as the Bangladeshi residents are non-people. 48 Patta is legal right to land written in a paper that is given by the Land Revenue Department. It is most important for a squatter to have a patta to establish ownership rights to the land. Getting a patta can be a bitterly-prolonged affair taking many years. 49 Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt and Gopa Samanta, ‘Fleeting Land, Fleeting People: Bangladeshi Women in a Charland Environment in Lower Bengal, India’, in Asia Pacific Migration Journal, Vol.13, no.4 (2004), pp.475–95; and Gopa Samanta and Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, ‘Marginal Lives in Marginal Lands: Livelihood Strategies of WomenHeaded Households in Charlands of the Damodar, Lower Bengal, India’, paper presented at XI National Conference of the Indian Association for Women’s Studies, Goa, 3–6 May 2005.


338

SOUTH ASIA

groundwater. Poorer farmers keep their lands fallow during the kharif or main cropping season (July to October) as during this time of high evaporation it is impossible to cultivate without irrigation. The winter season, from October to March, when temperatures are lower, is thus the main cropping season of the chars. During this time, vegetables are grown for nearby urban markets. As well, better-off farmers can afford to invest in a second crop of rice (boro dhan). The farmers who produce vegetables engage the women of their families to provide the extra attention that these crops need. Poorer people usually work in another’s field when their own lands are fallow during the kharif season. The fallow land during kharif provides an opportunity for the rearing of cows, goats and pigs to supplement family incomes. This is the rainy time of the year and there is a good yield of local grass, so the livestock need to be fed only once, at night. During winter, the animals subsist on hay purchased locally. The cultivation process is small, marginal, and extremely labour-intensive. As a result, labourers are in high demand in this charland, providing a livelihood for new migrants Typically the dwellings in a char form two parallel rows, separated by a dirt track. Construction is done entirely by family members. The houses are built of bamboo (the dominant species of plant in the char), locally available timber from mango or jackfruit trees, and mud. The roofs are made of paddy straw, corrugated tin or asbestos. Poorer families, however, often cannot afford to apply a mud coating to the walls; consequently cold winds blow through their walls in winter. One of our informants observed ruefully: ‘in winter’ we ‘eagerly wait for the mornings’. Recently some chouras have built pucca houses with brick and mud walls, and roofs of tin and asbestos, with the aid of loans from local mahajans or moneylenders. Population is understandably greater in the higher or more permanent chars that are less liable to flooding. For example the population density of elevated Char Gaitanpur is 388 persons per square kilometre according to the 2001 census.50 But the population density is increasing rapidly in almost all the chars in this area with the continuous influx of unauthorised migrants from Bangladesh. (The joint family system is uncommon here because of the ‘new’ nature of establishment and settlement.) For the same reason, the land-holdings of the chouras are quite tiny; generally farmers owning just five bighas (0.5 hectares) of agricultural land could be designated ‘big’ in the char environment. Our awareness of the chars and the lives of char communities dates back to our doctoral research which was completed respectively in 1985 and 2002, both on 50

This is close to the Indian threshold urban density of 400 persons per sq. km.



OF

SAND’

339

urbanisation processes.51 The research reported here is part of an ongoing study, based entirely on fieldwork methods. The surveys were carried out in several chars located on a 48-kilometre stretch of the Damodar River where it divides the Bankura and Burdwan districts of West Bengal. Some of these chars are attached to the northern riverbank and are locally known as mana (such as Kasba Mana, Bhasapur Mana), whereas others are islands, locally known as char mana (for example, Majher Char Mana, Kalimohanpur Char Mana). To develop an intimate knowledge of the perceptions of the security of life in chars, we built up personal contacts with individual women and men in Char Gaitanpur, which is more accessible from the nearby town. We took the oral histories of 30 women and 30 men currently living in the charlands and recorded these conversations. The conversations (in Bengali) were transcribed later into English. The selection process of these men and women was very subjective and did not follow any scientific method of sampling since we had to be content with whoever had the time or inclination to talk to us. Nevertheless despite time being a precious commodity, the inhabitants of Gaitanpur were keen to talk to us about their lives. All the names given in the paper are real, and have been used with the consent of the informants.

Vulnerabilities in Charlands Vulnerability affects the poor households living in a charland environment in numerous ways. They may be natural calamities such as floods and riverbank erosion, or socio-economic ones such as an abrupt fall in the market price of agricultural products, or illness. In their study on the chars of Bangladesh, Brocklesby and Hobley noted that multiple vulnerabilities experienced by the char dwellers are the underlying cause of their chronic, persistent, and extreme poverty.52 In the Damodar charlands the situation is not very different in respect of the vulnerability/poverty equation. Physical vulnerability is rooted in the threat of seasonal flooding, the shifting of river courses, and riverbank erosion.53 In 1990 Elahi and Rogge estimated that about one million people were displaced every year by floods and riverbank erosion in 51

Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, ‘Urbanization in the Lower Damodar Valley: A Case Study in Urban Geography’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Burdwan, 1985; and Gopa Samanta, ‘Rural-Urban Interaction in Burdwan and its Adjoining Areas’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Burdwan, 2002. 52 Mary Ann Brocklesby and Mary Hobley, ‘The Practice of Design: Developing the Chars Livelihoods Programme in Bangladesh’, in Journal of International Development, Vol.15, no.7 (2003), pp.893–909. 53 DFID (Department for International Development), ‘Chars Livelihood Programme’, in Project Memorandum (Dhaka: Department for International Development, 2002).


340

SOUTH ASIA

Bangladesh.54 No equivalent data are available for India, but in 2002 Rudra showed, in his analysis of changes in the course of the Ganga in recent times, that in the district of Murshidabad alone no less than 10,000 people had been displaced by erosion.55 In turn, these physical vulnerabilities can make charland people socially vulnerable and politically marginal. Often the land is not legally owned, its boundaries are in a constant flux, and the remoteness and lack of accessibility mean a total lack of health care, sanitation, water and electricity supplies. Ghosh notes in his 2004 report: Over 70,000 people living on no-man’s-land on the fragile islands along the Ganga are not too sure whether they belong to Jharkhand or West Bengal. For over the past five years, the residents of Pearpur, Kakri Bandha, Jhao Bona, Manikchak and Ratua in Malda have had to reorient their lives with the changing river course, which engulfed their homes and agricultural land. In the absence of any rehabilitation scheme, the villagers had to build their lives on the charlands or islands along the Ganga. But living here on this uncertain terrain, they are nobody’s children. The state government has disowned these ‘river people’ with its functionaries remaining engaged in academic discussions about demarcation of borders.56 The Damodar charlands, too, have their difficulties with bank erosion and the shifts in river course. For example, the Damodar used to demarcate the boundary between the Burdwan and Bankura districts of West Bengal, and with most of the stabilised charlands closer to the south bank, they used to be under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bankura district. However, as the river shifted towards the north bank, that is, towards the Burdwan district, the physical distance of the charlands from Bankura, where public services and government offices, panchayats, police stations and health centres are located, has increased. In terms of longer-term impacts on people’s lives, the vulnerability to erosion is much higher than for floods. Erosion is a frequent but irregular danger and creates fundamental and catastrophic livelihood shocks through which households lose land, shelter, and other assets. Flooding, by contrast, is not a regular seasonal phenomenon in the Damodar Valley and therefore not so traumatic. Moreover the 54

K. Maudood Elahi and John R. Rogge, Riverbank Erosion, Flood and Population Displacement in Bangladesh (Dhaka: Jahangirnagar University, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study, 1990). 55 K. Rudra, The Encroaching Ganga and Social Conflicts: The Case of West Bengal, India (Habra: Department of Geography, Habra S.C. Mahavidyalaya, 2002) [http://www.ibaradio.org/India/ganga/resources/Rudra.pdf, accessed 17 Feb. 2006]. 56 Aditya Ghosh, ‘Shifting River Erases Villages and Identities’, The Times of India (Kolkata) (24 Nov. 2004).



OF

SAND’

341

people of the chars now receive advance warnings from the DVC via radio about releases of water from the barrage upstream at Durgapur. As well, elderly char residents with experience of major floods are able to predict with some accuracy the height floodwaters are likely to reach in specific charlands. Prior warnings and local experience allow the local people to move themselves and their assets to the safety of the higher ground of the north bank at short notice. Ill-health, especially of earning members, brings vulnerability to charland people because of their extreme poverty. It affects both the cost and income of households in negative ways. Women who work outside of home cannot go to work if their children fall ill. As a result the family income decreases and at the same time daily expenses increase for treatment. Households with only one earning member are especially at risk in these ways. We found that illness amongst children, frequent in poorer households, is one of the major factors determining their level of wellbeing while illness was generally considered a worst-case scenario by our informants.

Coping and Adjustment Strategies: Perceptions of Security and Vulnerability Human perceptions and behaviour under different environmental events, especially those related to the natural environment, have been extensively analysed.57 Regarding the different behavioural patterns of people towards adjustment with hazardous environments Sonnenfeld notes: Individual and populations tend to differ in their responses to any environment. Some achieve more in environment, some achieve less; some adjust easily to environmental extremes, others adjust only with difficulty. Different responses may be a function of different abilities to respond to environment, or of different perceptions of environment. Understanding of the sources of variance in environmental 57 See Ian Burton and Robert W. Kates, ‘The Flood Plain and the Sea Shore: A Comparative Analysis of Hazard Zone Occupance’, in Geographical Review, Vol.64 (1964), pp.366–85; Thomas Frederick Saarinen, Perception of the Drought Hazard on the Great Plains (Chicago: Department of Geography, Research Paper 106, University of Chicago, 1996); Ian Burton, Robert W. Kates and Rodman E. Snead, The Human Ecology of Coastal Flood Hazard in Megalopolis (Chicago: Department of Geography, Research Paper 115, University of Chicago, 1969); David Lowenthal (ed.), Environmental Perception and Behavior (Chicago: Department of Geography, Research Paper 109, University of Chicago, 1967); James K. Mitchell, Community Response to Coastal Erosion: Individual and Collective Adjustments to Hazard on the Atlantic Shore (Chicago: Department of Geography, Research Paper 156, University of Chicago, 1974); and Thomas Frederick Saarinen, David Seamon and James L. Sell (eds), Environmental Perception and Behavior: An Inventory and Prospect (Chicago: Department of Geography, Research Paper 209, University of Chicago, 1984).


342

SOUTH ASIA perception is essential to an understanding of variation in man’s environmental behaviours.58

Our understanding is that perceptions of security in the charlands are closely linked to flood events and associated bank erosion. But in the Damodar most of the settlers have also experienced social insecurity in the form of political turmoil, religious persecution and cross-border migration. The vulnerability associated with these social factors has—ironically—increased their acceptance of natural calamities. Now let us look in more detail at the security issues nominated as important by the people we interviewed in Gaitanpur.

Physical Isolation The migrants from Bangladesh who settle the charlands of the Damodar often arrive without legal entry papers. But this in itself is not a great impediment to resettlement. Away from the constant prying eyes of police or unfriendly neighbours, relatives find places for the new migrants to live. And over the course of time valid papers, such as a ration cards or voter identification cards, are obtained through an informal chain of local political leaders, panchayat members, and community development block officials. The charlands, then, can be seen as an entry point to the mainland society and economy, making vulnerability a temporary or transient phenomenon. The settler Sadhan Mondal told us: We are not planning to stay here for a long time. We are fully aware of the vulnerability of these charlands. I have seen acres of land going to the river each year due to bank erosion in the rainy season. Any day in next flood the river can erode my house. I am here for four years and have got the citizenship documents for my wife and me. Still I am living here as I have yet to collect the citizenship documents for my two sons. The poverty and vulnerability of char residents like Sadhan Mondal are not simple but complex and interlinked outcomes of (1) their illegal immigration to India, and (2) their consequent exposure to floods and river erosion. However, not every char resident is waiting for an opportunity to leave. Some residents, whether or not they get citizenship documents, prefer to live in the charlands because they see them as a secure location. Isolation, usually avoided in choosing a 58

J. Sonnenfeld, ‘Environmental Perception and Adaptation Levels in the Arctic’, in D. Lowenthal (ed.) Environmental Perception and Behavior (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1967), p.42.



OF

SAND’

343

place of living, in this case is often a major recommendation. Sandhya Mondal, a 35-year-old woman, said of her charland environment: We are much better here than we were in Bangladesh. Here we never feel the pain of hunger. We can find work as labour in farming more of less throughout the year. Even if one day we do not get work then my husband and myself go to the river to catch fish. Sometimes we can get up to five kilograms of fish a day (worth Rs250). We can sell the fish to the neighbours. We have arranged our elder daughter’s marriage with a boy who is also living here in the char. We have built a house for them with our own labour. We are happily living here with no dearth of food and we are not going anywhere as we don’t have any valid document of Indian citizenship. Social Isolation Curiously, the distance from social networks of relatives and friends is a factor that sometimes disposes people to live in the charlands. We came across several instances where people felt pleased about how little was known outside about their past lives either in Bangladesh or elsewhere in West Bengal. Dhiren Mondal, a 50-year-old single man, has lived in Char Gaitanpur since his wife left him. He explained: I have left my house and land property in South 24 Paraganas to avoid the people who were known to me. My wife had left home with one of my friends, taking my four children with her. I could not cope with the way people taunted me and left my home to avoid those living there. At that time I was in search of an isolated place where nobody knows my past life. I felt that this charland could provide me with a new life. Dhiren perceives life in the char as more secure because of its relative isolation. Here he has a house and some farming land, which he farms or leases out. The physical toll of doing all the work at home and in the field is quite heavy on him, yet he feels at peace with himself and believes he is more secure living in the charland than he would be living on the mainland. Tukurani’s story also helps us to understand the social isolation posed by the charland environment. She is 32, and has been living in Char Gaitanpur for 10 years. But her husband still lives in Bangladesh. Why did she pick up and leave? When I went to my husband’s house after my marriage I did not spend a single day without quarrelling with my husband’s first wife. I did not


344

SOUTH ASIA get sufficient food; sometimes they used to beat me. I spent one year in that house and later on, when my husband proposed for me to come here, I accepted that proposal. We took shelter in a neighbour’s house. Within ten days my husband constructed the hut where we started living together. He purchased some land and a few goats and cattle. With the help of these assets I can now run the household and make arrangements for a minimum livelihood. I am happy and feel secure, as there is nobody to quarrel with and to beat me. This is quite enough for a woman like me—poor and ill-fated.

At present Tukurani has four children including a newborn baby. She owns jointly with her absentee husband 0.6 hectares of agricultural land; a house with brick walls and corrugated tin roof; five goats and one cow. Living and securing a livelihood alone is a heavy burden indeed for her, yet she feels that she has a more secure life here than she would have had she remained in Bangladesh. However, Tukurani is sharply aware of the vulnerability of living in the charlands, as demonstrated in her response to our question ‘What will you do if your land and house is lost to the river by erosion?’ ‘I do not want to think of it. I can’t stop the shifting of the river and erosion of land. In the case it happens, I would see what other arrangements for us can be made. I trust my husband, he is a responsible man’. This statement exemplifies the fatalistic attitude of many chouras: put oneself at the mercy of nature and try to make the best of the present. The security in the charlands as perceived by the people like Dhiren and Tukurani is difficult to explain by neutral, objective and absolute human knowledge systems of the environment. They require looking into personal histories that go beyond the general. Usually chars pose difficulties for women in obtaining water, food and other supplies, sanitation, and access to medical care. A charwoman of Bangladesh is quoted by Sarkar et al. as saying: ‘The worst thing about char life is women dying at childbirth because they cannot get medical attention during floods’.59 Yet for at least one migrant woman in Damodar, living there is apparently preferable to living in Bangladesh. This brings us to the question of subjective perceptions of human–nature interactions. The construction of one’s own secure home in what is commonly seen as a highlyvulnerable environment can also reflect the inherent power differentials in society.

Availability of Cheap Land Down to the 1970s land was free in some of the Damodar charlands. Although this is no longer the case, the land is still cheaper here due to its susceptibility to flooding 59

Sarker et al., ‘Rivers, Chars and Char Dwellers of Bangladesh’, p.76.



OF

SAND’

345

and river erosion. The availability of cheap land attracts people like Narayan Biswas who has expertise in farming and has experimented with the production of unusual vegetables. Narayan came to the Damodar charlands after losing his small business which he had set up after moving to a nearby town in India. He took land on lease and produced marketable vegetables like capsicum and broccoli for select urban consumers. He has chosen this char because of its nearness to the urban market of Burdwan town where he can sell his produce at a fair price. However, his interest is more in the several prizes he has won in the Burdwan District’s agricultural competition, than on money. He is still poor but feels satisfied with his work: ‘I am quite happy here as I have been able to prove my skill in producing high-priced vegetables in the sandy soil of the chars. My wife extends her help in my experiments as there is no false sense of prestige, common amongst the middle classes about women’s work in the fields. Here, in all families, women can participate in farming their fields, of great help in my experiments. Crops like capsicum or broccoli need constant care which my wife does better than me or any other wage labour’. Narayan says that the vulnerability of the land is not a major issue as he has few permanent assets.

‘Lottery Against Nature’ The influence of cultural adjustment over generations is evident in the different ways the Bangladeshi and Bihari migrants—both groups are from flood-prone areas— have adjusted to the charlands of the Damodar. Flood is an annual phenomenon of the northern part of Bihar, from where most of the Bihari settlers originated; and so it is in Bangladesh. Therefore, one might expect the chouras of the Damodar to be well-versed in coping with floods—to know how to utilise the flood plains in order to get the maximum benefit out of them. However, as the regular flow of water in the river decreased over the years, the Biharis have found it harder to cope with the changing ecology, and have tended to move out of the chars; whereas the Bangladeshis, arriving without legal papers, have flourished by expertly manoeuvring their land- and water-based livelihoods. The benefits of ‘good’ floods (low-magnitude floods) outweigh the disadvantages of ‘bad’ floods (devastating floods) in the chars. Low-magnitude floods are often welcomed by the charland people as they replenish the natural fertility of the land by depositing fresh silt. In 1997 Leaf observed in a sample survey of rural people’s attitudes to flood in Bangladesh that 86 percent of households were satisfied with the way they adjusted to normal inundation, and did not want any change to that situation.60 In our survey of the charlands of Damodar, some respondents testified that they saw flooding as a natural element—part of the natural rhythm of things. More than floods, they 60

M. Leaf, ‘Local Control Versus Technocracy: The Bangladesh Flood Response Study’, in Journal of International Affairs, Vol.51, no.1 (1997), pp.179–200.


346

SOUTH ASIA

are apprehensive of erosion of the scarce cultivable and liveable charlands by the river. Bogardi observed that the intensifying use of the flood plains over many decades has proved the willingness of societies to accept this ‘lottery against nature’,61 having in mind (most likely unconsciously) the trade-off between potential (but occasionally quite high) losses and fairly regular benefits. In these charlands people are also aware of the potential damage to their property by flooding and use the land for both agriculture and the grazing of animals to improve the odds in the lottery that is nature. Naren Sarkar of Char Bhasapur is one of such people. Originally from Dhaka, he came to India with his parents in the late 1950s when he was only six years old. First the family took shelter on a char on the Hooghly River where they had relatives. After a few years they moved to Char Bhasapur (an attached char of the Damodar River), where they have lived ever since. Naren’s first house and landholding were destroyed by the 1978 flood. Undeterred, Naren paid for some more land and built another house further away from the main water channel and closer to the northern embankment. Even so, because of the shift of the river channel towards the northern bank, Naren’s new house remains on the margin so far as secure settlement is concerned. Nevertheless in conversation he expressed satisfaction with his situation, noting: ‘We are like drifting grains of sand, rolling from one place to another. In one place today, in another tomorrow, but always with the river’s flow’. We asked, ‘Did you ever consider living away from this uncertain life in the char?’ He replied: I have no skills and no experience of any work other than agriculture. My parents have taught how to till the land to make it yield more for our families. I can only use my farming skills for living. Land is cheap in charlands and we have no dearth of water for wetting our lands. See, we were brought up in flood-prone areas of Bangladesh. In comparison, the frequency and magnitude of floods are less on these charlands. We also know how to cope with the natural calamities like flood and river erosion. We do not want to move away from the river. If the river does not let us stay here then we shall go somewhere else. However, till the river destroys our entire property as well as this char we will be here. We feel secure here as we have sufficient incomes to feed our families.

61

J.J. Bogardi, ‘Water Hazards, Risks and Vulnerabilities in a Changing Environment’, paper presented at the International Conference on Space and Water: Towards Sustainable Development and Human Security, Santiago de Chile, 1–2 April 2004.



OF

SAND’

347

This statement does not only convey a sense of security, but also a feeling of confidence. The belief that they can protect themselves, home and family, and others in the community, and if necessary re-establish their livelihoods, runs strongly amongst the char dwellers. Nor is this pie in the sky. They have established a rapport with their environment and a keen awareness of their surroundings, an acceptance of the river’s moods. They are prepared for sudden change. Here we come to the crux of our argument, which is that charland people see their adjustment to the river as a contingent, short-term, undefined process unclarified temporally. Some charland dwellers even refuse to be described as ‘Bangladeshis’ or as ‘migrants’. Biswanath Mondal, another resident of Char Gaitanpur, said: Do not call me a migrant. Of the three brothers of my grandfather, one lived in Khulna whereas two others were in 24 Parganas. Partition divided the land and we got separated in two countries. It was a matter of chance that I was left in Bangladesh. If I came to live in India, how am I a migrant? I do not consider myself a migrant. This is also our land, our country. Still people say that I am a Bangladeshi migrant!’ For Biswanath, the char is home. He has a large family, and has now constructed a pucca house—brick with asbestos roof—on the land reclaimed from the abandoned river channel with a loan taken from the local mahajan (money-lender). He sees the house as an investment for the future, but is aware that this might be a gamble: ‘I am living on a dried-up riverbed. It is land that might be claimed again by the river. Right now I do not have the money to leave the charland and settle elsewhere. But I am trying to save some money from my crop sales, so that I can leave this godforsaken land in the future’. Clearly, he thinks of his stay in this char as temporary, although there is no indication that he intends to leave anytime soon.

Lives Defined by the River Understanding the conditions under which people live in an environment seen by most as marginal and risky illuminates our understanding of environmental insecurity, vulnerability and livelihood. It is clear from our study that perceptions of security, insecurity and vulnerability are subjective, and may differ widely between different segments of people—even locally. Whereas some evidently feel more secure living in charlands than living among hostile neighbours, others perceive these areas as suitable lands for a temporary stay, while others again consider the chars as places totally unfit for habitation. Some try to build permanent structures and make plans for a long-term stay, whilst other char dwellers are more sensitive to the vulnerability of the charlands and use them purely as a temporary refuge.


348

SOUTH ASIA

We have noted that the frequency and intensity of floods in the Damodar chars have decreased since the construction of the DVC dams. The reduced flow and frequency of devastating floods have added to the char-dwellers sense of security, resulting in a more intense use of the local resources at the same time. However with increasing competition for scarce land, more intensive kinds of farming have been introduced. This begs the question: has the steady inflow of people into this fragile environment and the more intensive use of the charland increased or decreased vulnerability? This is not a simple question, as we have noted that during recent decades the olderestablished Bihari fishing communities have gradually left the charlands while even more Bangladeshis have moved in. It is clear that old occupational or cultural traditions and experiences can have a significant influence on the ways subjective perceptions operate. We must also note that adjustment is also dependent upon income levels. Those who can afford insurance can build their homes on relatively higher ground or with higher foundations to lessen the impact of flood damage. The poorer people in the charlands live in homes situated on lower-lying land near the riverbanks or even in the dried-up river channels. Thus, it becomes clear that poverty intensifies insecurity. However, there are generational differences, as the awareness of the devastation that the Damodar floods can cause is relatively higher among the older men and women who had personally experienced the massive 1978 flood. Developing adaptive capacity is commonly seen as an important strategy to cope with fragile environments. Indeed the char residents have developed an intimate understanding of the uncertain environment in which they live. Facing continuous uncertainty, the chouras have honed their senses. They know more or less accurately the level to which the river water will rise for different volumes of water released from upstream reservoirs. They remain alert during the monsoons. Small boats are kept ready to carry them away from the rising waters. It is not a simple matter of semantics to describe this ability as resilience, as competency, or as capacity to adapt. In our view, it is best to define this ability of the chouras in lower Bengal as one of ‘adjustment’—as a day-to-day, continual but contingent, set of strategic choices and decisions made by the individuals and the communities. The chouras are in a continual gamble with nature, ‘dancing’ with the changeable moods of the river, trying to make the best of their vulnerable situation in a marginal environment. Yet it would be foolhardy to generalise that all char people are either living happily, peacefully and permanently, or alternatively are on their way out. As we remarked earlier, many of them are acutely aware of the vulnerability of their riverine environment, but have no choice but to stay due to their problematic legal status. The aspects of the physical environment they are particularly concerned about are riverbank erosion and changing of the main course of the river—which changes have the potential to destroy major parts of the char including their homes and cultivated lands. However, even then, some char residents feel comfortable about



OF

SAND’

349

taking the risk. In a way, their very social marginality has helped them to adjust to the multiple vulnerabilities they face. In answering our version of the question we began with—‘why do people live in the marginal environment of the chars in spite of immense insecurity’—this research broadly confirms that the root causes of poverty and vulnerability are largely identical and usually overlap. Delving deeper, however, it suggests that subjective perceptions about livelihood and choice of living space are often very personal. At one level these issues are rooted in culture. Traditional occupations, attitudes and feelings with respect to the environment clearly play an important role in determining how people adjust to vulnerable conditions. Our point is that the concepts of ‘risk’ and ‘vulnerability’ as used about day-to-day life, while valid as generalisations, do not work so well in specialised contexts such as those provided by the char environment. Some people simply have no choice. Individuals continuously redefine the risks and vulnerabilities associated with a place before moving on or staying put. Our paper illuminates the contextual dilemma of resilience, and underlines the part played by cultural and occupational traditions in survival strategies. We hope it will encourage a rethinking of the terminologies currently employed in adaptation studies.