The Incommensurable ‘Others’

RESISTANCES FALLING OUTSIDE THE TOTALITY OF NEOLIBERALISM

 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

Contents

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Totalitarian Totality of Neoliberal Global Regime ................................................................................ 4
3. The Question of Land and Impasse ....................................................................................................... 7
4. Locating the Question of Land and (In) Justice in the Contemporary Scenario ................................... 9
5. Can (In) Justice Speak to the Neoliberal Totality? .............................................................................. 12
6. Why Don’t They Speak to Each Other? ............................................................................................... 15
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 17

1
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

1. INTRODUCTION

The question of land and resistance in India has been multi-dimensional and voiced from different

locations using different languages. These resistances have emerged as fractured and fragmented.

For instance, there are many resistances taking place in different parts of India against diverse

issues such as, land grabbing for developing Special Economic Zones (SEZ), extractive industries,

and loss of sovereignty of farmers over their produce. I will critically engage with the resistances

by mapping them according to their episteme, historical situated-ness and location in the

colonial/post-colonial state and society, and the different forms of injustices faced by them.

Before, building my arguments in the essay, I will introduce the movements here to give a

contextual outlook which will help me engage with them from their different locations. I will talk

about three different movements in the essay. First movement is the ‘Adivasi resistance’ in central

India which has a unique history of insurgency against the colonial rule and the post-colonial state1.

The Adivasis of central India have been persistently revolting against the occupation and

monopoly of the state over the forest and the extraction of minerals2. Moreover, the they have been

trying to assert and regain the sovereignty of ‘Adivasis’ over the territory and its occupation by

using ‘Naxalism’ as their band wagon and creating ‘liberated zones’.3 The second movement is

the ‘Kondh resistance against Mining Niyamgiri’. Kondhs are the indigenous communities living

in the eastern part of India (Orrisa) on the top of Niyamgiri Hills.4 They regard Niyamgiri as the

1
Navlakha G., ‘Days and Nights in the Maoist Heartland’, Economic and Political Weekly (2010) Vol. 45 No. 16,
pg. 38-47
2
Ibid
3
Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The Curious Case of Bastar’, Modern Asian Studies (2016)
Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644
4
Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain and Godavaram: Net Present Value, Indigenous
Territorial Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in India’, Ecological Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg.
79-87;

2
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

creator of Universe and believe that all life flows from it.5 And, they have been in constant conflict

with the state and Vedanta Group of Industries which is a transnational corporation, against the

material dislocation from land, as well as, against the ‘logic of dispossession’ which is endangering

their cosmological worldview and their life as a whole with and within Niyamgiri.6 The third

movement is the food sovereignty movement in Karnataka in the form of Zero Budget Natural

Farming. Karnataka is a dry region and is facing ecological threats due to climate change.7 Also,

mechanised agriculture, subsidiary cut and heavy cost of input leave the farmers debt ridden.8

Therefore, this movement has constantly attacked the proliferation of the agri-business industry

which not only denies the autonomy of peasants over their produce, but also alters their relationship

with land and produce as resources and commodities.9 The movement resists agri-business by

boycotting market products and returning to the tradition of caring for their ecology by using

‘subsistence methods of agriculture’.10

Further, I have contextually grounded my theoretical argument of the neoliberal totality as

being an extension of ‘coloniality of modernity/power’ referring to the resistances in the first part.

In the second part I have analysed the contemporary question of ‘land and impasse’ by relating it

to past resistances, historical wrongs, and re-configurations of bordering and ‘othering’ practices

in the colonial/post-colonial regime. This supports the argument I have made in the first part as

well as paves my way to locating the three resistances in the contemporary scenario based on their

episteme and location. Then I have analyzed the contrast between the ideas of justice within the

neoliberal framework and articulation of (in) justice from the location of resistances using the

5
Ibid
6
Ibid
7
Khadse A., ‘Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in Karnataka’
The Journal of Peasant Studies (2017) pg.1-28
8
Ibid
9
Ibid
10
Ibid

3
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

concept of ‘totalitarian totality’, ‘technology of power,’ and ‘practice of othering’ to establish that

the neoliberal framework and resistances form different totalities. In the last section, I have used

the concept of ‘imperialism of history’ as a tool for ‘othering’ and ‘rise of subalternity as identity

politics’ in order to show the existence of a disconnect between the three movements. This will

demonstrate that the resistances cannot speak to each other because of the ‘othering’ practices of

neoliberal state based on the colonial logic. Finally, I conclude my essay arguing that these

resistances fall outside the framework of the neoliberal totality and articulate the question of (in)

justice in different way. This will therefore demonstrate that they are incommensurable.

2. TOTALITARIAN TOTALITY OF NEOLIBERAL GLOBAL REGIME

In this essay I argue that the totality of neoliberal global policy regime is an extension of the

‘coloniality of modernity/power’ which represents Global North (de-territorialized capital and

elites, as well as the concept of development and democracy) as ‘self’ and locates the Global South

(impoverished/marginalized/indigenous communities and their episteme/totality) as its ‘other’.11

In order to establish my argument, I will analyse the ruptures and continuity in the discourse of

modernity and its reconfiguration as neoliberalism/capitalism.

According to Mignolo, modernity is a totalitarian totality that is opposed to the notion of

co-existence of different totalities simultaneously. Its existence is, however, dependent on the

‘coloniality of power and knowledge’ that objectively studies other epistemes, cosmologies, and

totalities from its own location and defines them as inferior (racial inferiority, savageness,

11
Dirlik A., ‘Spectres of the Third World: Global Modernity and the End of the Three Worlds’, Third World Quarterly
(2004) Vol. 25 No. 1, pg. 131-148; Mignolo W.D., ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic
of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-coloniality’, Cultural Studies (2007) Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pg. 449-514

4
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

illogicality, and a-historicity) from its yardstick of science and philosophy.12 This ‘totalitarian

notion of totality of modernity’ that was applied to subjugate and exploit other societies and their

epistemes during the colonial rule has been reconfigured as a totality of neoliberalism/capitalism

in post-colonial societies because of the ‘coloniality of the mind and knowledge’.13 The concept

of ‘coloniality of mind and knowledge’ tells us that the rhetoric of modernity was articulated as a

superior episteme and that its placement as the only episteme served to silence other epistemes.

This analysis of neoliberalism as the reconfigured form of modernity due to the operation of

‘colonial matrix of power’ helps us come to a critical understanding that the Global North (West

and neoliberal capital) which dominates the contemporary policy regimeof the IMF, World Bank,

and WTO, uses the discourse of development and democracy to argue that the only way of living

is found within the neoliberal framework; elites within post-colonial societies are co-opted into

this process14 because of the colonization of knowledge. This keeps Global North (West and

neoliberal capital) at the centre of the totality and places other societies into the periphery.15

The neoliberal totality projects ‘other’ totalities as inferior, but at the same time it also

assumes the role of ‘emancipator and educator’ that is capable of rescuing other totalities from

themselves (referred to savageness, primitiveness, and traditional forms of being).16 But, when

these identified-other-inferior totalities oppose the totality of neoliberalism and present themselves

as different (in episteme and cosmological world view), they cannot be subsumed within the

neoliberal totality. Then neoliberal totality names them as ‘threat’ because the very existence of

12
Mignolo W.D., ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-
coloniality’, Cultural Studies (2007) Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pg. 449-514
13
Ibid
14
Ibid
15
Mignolo W.D., ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-
coloniality’, Cultural Studies (2007) Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pg. 449-514
16
Nayar J., ‘The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-the-World: Thinking Exteriority’, Law Critique (2013) Vol. 24 No.
1, pg. 63-85; Mignolo W.D., ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of
De-coloniality’, Cultural Studies (2007) Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pg. 449-514

5
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

neoliberal totality is dependent on the denial and non-recognition of other totalities.17 Therefore,

while the neoliberal totality is re-configured as the new form of totalitarian totality of modernity,

the other totalities and epistemes are identified as either ‘passive victims’ (peasants, women) or as

‘threating others’ (terrorist, Naxal, insurgent).18

I will use this theoretical analysis to discuss the unresolvable nature of the land question in

India and the unending struggles of peasants and forest dwellers against the neoliberal capital.

17
Nayar J, ‘The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-the-World: Thinking Exteriority’, Law Critique (2013) Vol. 24 No.
1, pg. 63-85; Robinson A. & Tormey S., ‘Resisting ‘Global Justice’: Disrupting the Colonial ‘Emancipatory’ Logic
of the West’, Third World Quarterly (2009) Vol. 30 No. 8, pg. 1395-1409
18
Dirlik A., ‘Spectres of the Third World: Global Modernity and the End of the Three Worlds’, Third World Quarterly
(2004) Vol. 25 No. 1, pg. 131-148; Mignolo W.D,, ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic
of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-coloniality’, Cultural Studies (2007) Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pg. 449-514; Nayar
J., ‘The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-the-World: Thinking Exteriority’, Law Critique (2013) Vol. 24 No. 1, pg.
63-85

6
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

3. THE QUESTION OF LAND AND IMPASSE

The question of land in India has continuously been an area of contestation and debate. It has

also generated multiple fragmented resistances since the colonial regime because of the rise of

subaltern consciousness and identities.19 In this section I will talk about the relationality of

historical wrongs and the re-configuration of bordering and naming practices. It will help me to

establish the relationship of historical wrongs and present (in) justices using the concept of

‘coloniality of power/knowledge’.

The discourse of modernity/coloniality, the imperialism of history, and colonial laws and

policies have created binary oppositions (primitive vs. modern, savage vs. civilized, Aryan vs.

non-Aryan) which legitimized the exploitation and restructuring of the spatial and temporal

realities in colonial India.20 History as a technocratic, quantified, and scientific discipline defined

the natives as ‘ahistorical’ and ‘savages/criminals’ who were located outside of the totality of

modernity; the logic of modernity legitimized the use of coercive laws and administrative policies

for governing these ‘ahistorical’ and ‘savage’ societies.21 For example, on the one hand, the

colonial enterprise used the racial logic of modernity to identify ‘Adivasis’ (forest dwellers

engaged in pastoral form of livelihood) as pre-Aryan criminal22/savages not fit to self-govern. This

19
Vishwanath L.S., ‘Peasant Movements in Colonial India: An Examination of Some Conceptual Frameworks’,
Economic and Political Weekly (1990) Vol. 25, No. 2 pg. 118-12; Krishna S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary
Destitution: Law, Race, and Human Security’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101;
Bhalla G.S., ‘ Peasant Movement and Agrarian Change in India’, Social Scientist (1983) Vol. 11 No. 8, pg. 39-5
20
Nandy A., ‘History's Forgotten Doubles’, History and Theory (1995) Vol. 34, No. 2, pg. 44-66; Mignolo
W.D., ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-coloniality’, Cultural
Studies (2007) Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pg. 449-514
21
Nandy A., ‘History's Forgotten Doubles’, History and Theory (1995) Vol. 34, No. 2, pg. 44-66; Krishna
S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law, Race, and Human Security’, Alternatives: Global, Local,
Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101
22
Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 brought into force by colonizers notified pastoral ‘adivasis’ as criminal tribes in order to
limit the ‘adivasi’s access to forest and at the same time to configure their bodies as labour force for the industrial
mode of agricultural production under the Zaminari system.

7
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

racial logic legitimized their direct administrative control for the exploitation of forest produce and

land which led to the widespread displacement of the ‘Adivasi’ communities from their traditional

habitat.23 On the other hand, colonizers exercised indirect control over the mainstream village

based agricultural peasant communities through the Zamindari system which classified, quantified

and commodified land (through land title, ownership and strict taxation regimes) for the purposes

of industrialized agricultural production.24 I argue that the ‘coloniality of power and knowledge’

re-inscribes these labels and subjectivities on the ‘Advasis’ (as traditional/illiterate/threatening)

and peasant communities (as poor and passive victims) in the post-colonial state through the ‘lethal

assemblage’ of colonial laws, contemporary domestic and global legal regimes and post-colonial

governmentality.25 This ‘lethal assemblage’ rationalizes the extraction of natural resources in

‘Adivasi’ dwelled forest areas by using the neoliberal emancipatory language of growth and

development (‘brining development to the illiterate and to improve their life conditions) leading

to epistemic violence (rejection of their way of living as backward) and material dispossession

(land grabbing by force and violence)26 from their traditional habitat. While, the adoption of a

neoliberal policy regime with regard to agriculture commodifies land, agriculture, and produce and

23
Krishna S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law, Race, and Human Security’, Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101; Banarjee P., ‘Writing the Adivasi’: Some Historiographical
Notes’, The Indian Economic and Social History Review (2016) Vol. 53 No. 1, pg. 131-153; Dasgupta
S., ‘Introduction: Reading the Archive Reframing ‘Adivasi’ Histories’, The Indian Economic and Social History
Review (2016) Vol. 53 No. 1, pg. 1-8; Kela S., Adivasi’ and Peasant: Reflections on Indian Social History’, The
Journal of Peasant Studies (2006) Vol. 33 No. 3, pg. 502-525
24
Krishna S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law, Race, and Human Security’, Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101
25
Mezzadra S., Reid J., Samaddar R., 'The Biopolitics of Development: Reading Michel Foucault in the Postcolonial
Present' (Springer 2013); Krishna S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law, Race, and Human
Security’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101; Mignolo W.D., ‘Delinking: The
Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-coloniality’, Cultural Studies (2007) Vol. 21
No. 2-3, pg. 449-514
26
Butler J. and Athanasiou A., ‘Dispossession: The Performative in the Political’ (Polity Press, 2013)

8
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

leaves the peasant society in the state of destitution because of the exploitation and denial of

reproductive labour, lack of autonomy on the mode of production and in determining its value27.

4. LOCATING THE QUESTION OF LAND AND (IN) JUSTICE IN THE

CONTEMPORARY SCENARIO

In the previous section, I established that due to the ‘coloniality of power/knowledge’ the post-

colonial states in the era of neo-liberalization keeps bordering the totalities/episteme of tribal and

peasant communities as the nationalist elites representing the nation are subsumed within the

totality of modernity.

In this section, I will look at three specific cases of resistance in order to discuss the

question of land with respect to the neoliberal totality. It is important to examine different

resistances from their epistemological premise as these resistances form different totalities rather

than being a part of one totality. Starting with ‘Adivasi’ resistance in central India, the uniqueness

about their resistance is that ‘Adivasi’ totality is informed by its episteme which views the forest

as the provider of life.28 Their life in/with the forest is an inseparable whole.29 As such, the

‘Adivasi’ have constantly rejected the control, appropriation, and exploitation of forest by

colonizers and the post-colonial state.30 The colonial administration through direct administration

in the region appropriated forest land and produce by settling intermediary parties in the region

27
Krishna S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law, Race, and Human Security’, Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101; Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The
Curious Case of Bastar’, Modern Asian Studies (2016) Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644; Khadse
A., ‘Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in Karnataka’ The Journal
of Peasant Studies (2017) pg.1-28
28
Navlakha G., ‘Days and Nights in the Maoist Heartland’, Economic and Political Weekly (2010) Vol. 45 No. 16,
pg. 38-47
29
Ibid
30
Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The Curious Case of Bastar’, Modern Asian Studies (2016)
Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644

9
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

and limiting the access of ‘Adivasis’ through forced dispossession by the use of law and a

repressive police apparatus.31 After the formation of post-colonial state, the modernist state

claimed a monopoly over forest land-produce-minerals and seeks to dispossess ‘Adivasis’ through

‘technologies of power’ such as, the jurisprudence of eminent domain32 and colonial laws (Land

Acquisition Act, 1894), securitization regimes (militarizing the region in the name of Naxal threat).

and the speech act of political leadership about development33 The ‘Adivasi’ episteme is in sharp

contrast to the logic of neoliberalism that tends to capitalize on the nature for the benefit of capital.

The contemporary ‘Adivasi’ resistance in the region has appropriated the ideology and method of

‘Naxal Movement’ which has led to the insurgency and counter-inurgency.34

Like the ‘Adivasi’, the resistance of Kondhs against the Vendanta mining plant in the

Niyamgiri Hills adheres to a different episteme than that informing the neoliberal totality. The

Kondhs episteme is governed by a spiritual and religious relation with the Niyamgiri Hill, which

they see as God (creator of the Universe), who is both living and the provider of life.35 They believe

in live and believe to be in together-ness and interdependence with their ecological surroundings.36

The mining of the Niyamgiri pursued by state of Orrisa (East India) and Vedanta under the guise

31
Ibid
32
Ramanathan U., ‘On Eminent Domain and Sovereignty’, Seminar (2010)
33
Krishna S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law, Race, and Human Security’, Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101
34
Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The Curious Case of Bastar, , Modern Asian Studies (2016)
Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644; Navlakha G., ‘Days and Nights in the Maoist Heartland’, Economic and Political
Weekly (2010) Vol. 45 No. 16, pg. 38-47; Krishna S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law,
Race, and Human Security’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101
35
Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain and Godavaram: Net Present Value, Indigenous Territorial
Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in India’, Ecological Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg. 79-87;
Survival, ‘Dongaria Tribe’s View to be Heard in Indian Supreme Court’, 14th April, 2016
36
Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain and Godavaram : Net Present Value, Indigenous
Territorial Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in India’, Ecological Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg.
79-87

10
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

of ‘development’ is perceived by them as dispossession from the spirituality and materiality of

their being.37

Finally, the Zero Budget Natural Farming (food sovereignty) movement in Karnataka has

been resisting the neoliberal logic of regarding agriculture as a mechanized process and

commodification of food.38 It sees agri-business firms, states and global institutions as a source of

injustice because the agricultural policies such as green revolution compromised the ecological

balance which in the contemporary scenario makes them vulnerable to effects of climate change39.

It argues for a traditional mode of food production which is ecologically sound and sustainable for

their cultural and communitarian values.40It has adopted the ideology of Swaraj (self-governance)

and Asahayog (non-cooperation) as an epistemological premise which not only asserts the

sovereignty and autonomy of the producer over their produce and food, but it also establishes a

spiritual and emotional relation between producer and their land as ‘mother earth’ rather than as a

resource to be exploited.41

The contextual analysis of these resistances highlights that they themselves form different

totalities informed by the (in) justices of colonial legacy (material loss and coloniality of power)

rooted in their cultures and epistemological premise. These resistances have been challenging the

imperialism of the totality of neoliberalism from their own location by not giving in to the logic of

neoliberalism/modernity and asserting their difference.

37
Ibid
38
Khadse A., ‘Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in Karnataka’ The
Journal of Peasant Studies (2017) pg.1-28
39
India Climate Dialogue, ‘Climate-Resilient Organic Cotton Makes a Come Back’, (26 October 2016)
40
Khadse A., ‘Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in Karnataka’ The
Journal of Peasant Studies (2017) pg.1-28; Environment Support Group, ‘Bangloreans Join Hands with
the Global Movement against Monsanto and for Safe Food’, 15th October 2013; Lobby Watch,
‘Karnataka Bans Monsanto’s BT Cotton Seeds’, 11 August 2002
th
41
Ibid

11
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

5. CAN (IN) JUSTICE SPEAK TO THE NEOLIBERAL TOTALITY?

In this section I will argue that all the three resistances are placed out of the totality of neoliberalism

because of the articulation of difference and assertion that justice within the neoliberal totality is

no justice. This difference and challenge projected to the neoliberal totality as well as the idea that

neoliberal totality can be a reference point for the conception of justice (as compensation, social

welfare, restricted access to the forest and land) makes them incommensurable. So, the idea of

justice as a uniform and universal concept seen from the location of neoliberal totality itself gets

challenged.

The modern conceptions of justice, whether it be the political or cosmopolitan conceptions,

identifies communities engaged in resistance as poor, passive, victim, recipient of aid, and

recipients of humanitarian aid.42 The political conception of justice identifies the state as an

institution for imparting justice, while the cosmopolitan justice framework identifies corporate

firms and privileged individuals or consumers in the Global North as agents of justice who have a

responsibility towards the global poor.43 While the former does not consider historical wrongs

(colonialism) and structural injustices as reasons of (in) justice.44 The latter does recognize

historical wrongs and structural (in) justice, but it is still located within the totality of modernity

(or within the structure) because it does not tend to challenge the structures (global economic order

as well as the formation of post-colonial states based on the principles of modernity) and

institutions (global neoliberal order, state, corporations, category of consumers & producer) that

are the reasons of past and present (in) justices. Rather it has a tendency to pacify the difference

42
Nagel T.,‘The Problem of Global Justice’, Philosophy & Public Affairs (2005) Vol. 33 No. 2, pg. 113-147; Pogge
T., ‘Real World Justice’, The Journal of Ethics (2005) Vol. 9 No. 1/2, pg. 29–53; Approaches to Global Justice,
Lecture 2
43
Ibid
44
Ibid

12
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

and bring it back within the totality of neoliberalism.45 In relation to the issue of land and

dispossession, the neoliberal capitalist state promotes the concept of compensation, rehabilitation,

and resettlement.46 It monetizes the loss and dispossession as it only takes into account the

economic aspect while it silences the spiritual, emotional, psychological loss, and dispossession.47

Now if we look at the language of resistances and their methods it will help us to understand

that these resistances are placed outside the totality of neoliberalism due to the different ways of

knowing, living, and ‘being’ within both their communities and nature. Moreover, they reject the

notion of justice as compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement or redistribution48 by asking us

to look beyond these monetized and essentialised conceptions of justice.49 For example, the

‘Adivasi’ resistance in central India rejects the monopoly of the state over the forest, the hegemony

of modernity, development, and growth.50 The monetary compensation and resettlement offered

by the state and capital is rather viewed as a means of dispossession because of the loss of

autonomy and accessibility to the forest-land-water.51 The involvement in the ‘Naxal

movement’challenging the sovereignty and control of the state over the region through the

formation of ‘liberated zones’ and the establishment of Jantana Sarkar (parallel government) is

an expression of the frustration from the neoliberal regime that tries to bring them within the fold

by constructing itself as emancipator and ‘Adivasis’ as ‘illiterate, poor people’52

45
Approaches to Global Justice, Lecture 2
46
Levien M., ‘The Land Question: Special Economic Zones and the Political Economy of Dispossession in India’,
The Journal of Peasant Studies (2012) Vol. 39 No. 3-4, pg. 933-969
47
Butler J. and Athanasiou A., ‘Dispossession: The Performative in the Political’ (Polity Press, 2013)
48
Ibid
49
Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain and Godavaram: Net Present Value, Indigenous Territorial
Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in India’, Ecological Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg. 79-87
50
Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The Curious Case of Bastar’, Modern Asian Studies (2016)
Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644
51
Navlakha G., ‘Days and Nights in the Maoist Heartland’, Economic and Political Weekly (2010) Vol. 45 No. 16,
pg. 38-47
52
Ibid

13
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

Likewise, the Kondhs have denied compensation and have refused to leave their habitat.53

They have challenged the claim of the state and Vedanta over the Niyamgiri Hills by aligning

themselves with the local environmentalist and international NGOs\It has also challenging the state

and Vedanta in Supreme Court for recognition of their cultural and religious values altering the

spirituality of the Niyamgiri Hills and their cultural connection with it.54

If we look at the food sovereignty movement in Karnataka, we also see that this movement

has de-linked itself from the global agricultural input market. It highlights the injustice of the

neoliberal frame which constructs food as commodity, land as resource and peasant as labour free

to exploit. Rather than asking for support from the state, it is creating sufficiency and solidarity in

the community by sharing traditional subsistence form of agriculture to cope up with the effects

of climate change and financial crisis.

These totalities from their location refuse to get subsumed into the neoliberal totality by

accepting the norms, values and conception of justice of the neoliberal state and capital. The

rejection of opposing totalities to get subsumed under the neoliberal totality is problematic for the

state. As the totality of neoliberalism is hegemonic, it cannot recognize the existence of the

difference posed by these totalities.55 So, it places them at the periphery of the neoliberal totality

by naming them as ‘others’ of this hegemonic totality.56 The state as an agent of neoliberalism uses

speech acts and technologies of power to bring these opposing totalities within its own fold. It does

this by naming the ‘Adivasi’ resistance as a ‘Naxal insurgency’, denying the spiritual connection

53
Survival, ‘Rallying Cry: Dongaria Stand Firm against Vedanta Mine’, 13th June 2013; Survival, ‘Thousands Join
Rally of Defiance as Vedant Mine Ruling Postponed’, (7th December 2012)
54
Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain and Godavaram: Net Present Value, Indigenous Territorial
Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in India’, Ecological Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg. 79-87; Orissa
Mining Corpn. Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 47
55
MignoloW.D., ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the Grammar of De-
coloniality’, Cultural Studies (2007) Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pg. 449-514; Nayar J., ‘The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-
the-World: Thinking Exteriority’, Law Critique (2013) Vol. 24 No. 1, pg. 63-85
56
Ibid

14
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

of Kondhs with the Niyamgiri Hills and naming them as a ‘primitive, poor, and illiterate people’,

as well as by promoting the interests of domestic and global corporations engaged agricultural

products by the state, global economic actors and its agents in the name of ‘green revolution and

food security’.57

Therefore, I argue that there is no reference point where the neoliberal state’s conception of

justice and the communities engaged in the resistance can meet due to non-recognition of the

episteme of other totalities by the neo-liberal totality and the lack of acceptance among the

resistances of the conception of justice within the neoliberal totality. The neoliberal frame and

other totalities are incommensurables as they cannot speak to each-other due to the non-recognition

and acknowledgement of the ‘other’. This is evidenced by the direct and violent confrontations

between the state and the ‘Adivasi’ resistance through insurgency and counter-insurgency in

central India, the constant legal battle between the state/Vedanta and the Kondhs on the issue of

mining in Niyamgiri Hills, as well as in the radical difference asserted by the food sovereignty

movement against the commercialization of agriculture and the rejection of the discourse of food

security dictated by neoliberalism. This shows that the nature of the conflict regarding land and

communities engaged in resistance is of an unresolvable nature due to the radical difference

presented by the resistances and the lack of acknowledgement of the structural (in) justice

perpetuated by neoliberal totality.

6. WHY DON’T THEY SPEAK TO EACH OTHER?

57
Khadse A., ‘Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in
Karnataka ’ The Journal of Peasant Studies (2017) pg.1-28; Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain
and Godavaram : Net Present Value, Indigenous Territorial Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in
India’, Ecological Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg. 79-87; Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The
Curious Case of Bastar’, Modern Asian Studies (2016) Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644

15
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

The resistances in India regarding the question of land have been diverse and localized since

the colonial regime.58 Although, the bourgeoisie communist parties tried to bring various

communities (small and big peasants, peasants and forest dwellers) and resistances together to

form a coherent, organized, and structured movement during the post-colonial period,59 they failed

miserably to do so. This is because they did not take into account the situatedness of different

movements in the structural matrix and differences among the communities based on caste, class,

and race, as well as the localized impact of the colonial project.60 In the present scenario, although

the resistances share formal solidarity with each other, they are still quite fragmented due to their

differing epistemes, discourse, and methods of resistance.61

The coloniality of modernity and imperialism of history which identified the natives and

their totality as ‘ahistorical’ and inferior, placed them in a hierarchical order where the only

reference point was the totality of modernity. Therefore, although these totalities were the

‘ahistorical’ ‘inferior’ ‘others’ of modernity they were placed relatively in inferior/superior

position in relation to each other.62 This is quite evident in the colonial policies and administrative

policies that differentiated the totality of the ‘Adivasis’ communities from the Hindu community.

This differentiation not only legitimized the subjugation and differential treatment of communities

and their totalities, but it also normalized their subjugation and hierarchical ordering and the

exploitation of ‘Adivasis’ such as, Santhals, Mundas, Gonds, by savarna Hindu Zamindars based

58
Bhalla G.S., ‘Peasant Movement and Agrarian Change in India’, Social Scientist (1983) Vol. 11 No. 8, pg. 39-57;
Kapoor D., ‘Subaltern Social Movement (SSM) Post-Mortems of Development in India: Locating Trans-Local
Activism and Radicalism’, Journal of Asian and African Studies (2011) Vol. 46 No. 2, pg. 130-148
59
Bhalla G.S., ‘Peasant Movement and Agrarian Change in India’, Social Scientist (1983) Vol. 11 No. 8, pg. 39-57
60
Ibid
61
Khadse A., ‘Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in
Karnataka ’ The Journal of Peasant Studies (2017) pg.1-28; Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain
and Godavaram : Net Present Value, Indigenous Territorial Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in
India’, Ecological Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg. 79-87; Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The
Curious Case of Bastar’, Modern Asian Studies (2016) Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644
62

16
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

on racial difference among them.63 The hierarchization of totalities normalized the ‘otherness’

among the ‘Adivasi’ and mainstream peasant communities which is quite evident in the lack of

communication between the ‘Adivasi’ resistance in central India, the Kondh resistance, and the

mainstream peasant movements (in this case food sovereignty movement in Karnataka which is

dominantly represented by caste Hindus) signals towards the ‘coloniality of power’. This is not

the only reason for the disconnect as regional differences/politics, the ‘Adivasis’ emerging as

subaltern identity and claiming their space and difference with the contrast with the mainstream

movements are also responsible for this disconnect.64

Nevertheless, these resistances share transnational solidarities with other movements and

activists on the transnational, as well as local levels based on their material claims of (in) justice.65

While, the food sovereignty movement in Karnataka is aligned with La Via Campesina (global

campaign for food sovereignty), the resistance of the Kondhs has been getting national and global

attention due to the involvement of environmental activists and NGOs with the resistance.66For its

part, the case of the ‘Adivasi’ resistance in central India is peculiar because it is branded as a

‘Naxal’ insurgency by the state which prevents the alignment of other resistances with the

‘Adivasi’ resistance.67

7. CONCLUSION

63
Dasgupta S., ‘Introduction: Reading the Archive Reframing ‘Adivasi’ Histories’, The Indian Economic and Social
History Review (2016) Vol. 53 No. 1, pg. 1-8
64
Kapoor D., ‘Subaltern Social Movement (SSM) Post-Mortems of Development in India: Locating Trans-Local
Activism and Radicalism’, Journal of Asian and African Studies (2011) Vol. 46 No. 2, pg. 130-148
65
Ibid
66
Khadse A., ‘Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural Farming Peasant Movement in Karnataka’ The
Journal of Peasant Studies (2017) pg.1-28; Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain and Godavaram :
Net Present Value, Indigenous Territorial Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in India’, Ecological
Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg. 79-87
67
Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The Curious Case of Bastar’, Modern Asian Studies (2016)
Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644

17
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

The question of land and impasse is very fussy in the contemporary scenario as the resistances

and movements are trans-localized yet fragmented. There are two major points of my conclusion:

1) that the resistances discussed in the essay are incommensurable with the neoliberal totality, thus,

the question of land conflict is of unresolvable nature, and; 2) the resistances are disconnected with

each other as they constitute different totalities and because of the ‘coloniality of power’ there is

a sense of ‘otherness’ among the resistances and movements.

First of all, these resistances are being articulated from the location of (in) justice which brings

forth the materiality of (in) justice in the localized context, but also brings out the implication of

the global structures of (in) justice in the past (exploitation in the colonial regime by rationalizing

racism and epistemic violence against the indigenous cultures and traditions) and present (global

institutions that enhance structural inequalities) context. The neoliberal totality tries to bring these

opposing totalities within its framework as ‘other’ by naming them as

‘traditional’/‘illiterate’/‘primitive’/‘threat’. They are left to accept their position in the neoliberal

totality as ‘inferior others’ through the discourse of justice, which is provided for in the neoliberal

state through compensation and rehabilitation for being dispossessed and through the redistribution

of resources.

Despite this, these resistances assert their radical difference and present their episteme as

different rather than inferior. They challenge the neoliberal totality which is based on past

structures of injustice (institution of colonialism, racism, and disciplining of the past by through

history) through the articulation of (in) justice from their location, in their language, and episteme.

Furthermore, the totality of neoliberalism, which does not recognize any other totality, also

fails to acknowledge the (in) justices enhanced due to its global institutional structures. Rather it

denies the (in) justice by denying the very existence of other totalities and their difference. This

18
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

leads to frustration among other totalities. This is quite evident in all three resistances which

continuously assert their difference from the neoliberal totality due to the lack of conversation

between these resistances and the neoliberal totality. Therefore the conception of a justice from

the location of the neoliberal position as the only form of justice and the denial of difference is an

‘injustice’ in itself.

19
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

Bibliography

Books

1. Sundar A. & Sundar N.‘Contextualizing Civil Wars in South Asia’ (Sage: New Delhi,

2016)

http://0-sk.sagepub.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/books/civil-wars-in-south-asia/n2.xml

2. Nandy A., ‘The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism’ (Oxford

University Press 1983)

https://livewarwickac-

my.sharepoint.com/personal/u1666129_live_warwick_ac_uk/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx

?docid=1a4dac57c421245a6873ae10b7cfabc27&authkey=AWnK6J0I9RJs7a7BVW-

KcGk&action=view

3. Spivak G.C., ‘Imaginary Maps: Three Stories by Mahasweta Devi’ (Routledge 1995)

4. Butler J. and Athanasiou A., ‘Dispossession: The Performative in the Political’ (Polity

Press, 2013)

5. Mezzadra S., Reid J., Samaddar R., 'The Biopolitics of Development: Reading Michel

Foucault in the Postcolonial Present' (Springer 2013)

Journal Articles

1. Verghese A., ‘British Rule and Tribal Revolts in India: The Curious Case

of Bastar’, Modern Asian Studies (2016) Vol. 50 No. 5, pg. 1619-1644

https://0-www.cambridge.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/core/services/aop-cambridge-

core/content/view/D1F52864F0CBD6D37FFC2B7DE9CBA5A4/S0026749X14000687a.p

df/british_rule_and_tribal_revolts_in_india_the_curious_case_of_bastar.pdf

20
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

2. Marino A., ‘‘Where is the Time to Sleep?’ Orientalism and Citizenship in Mahasweta Devi’s

Writings’, Journal of Post-Colonial Writing (2014) Vol. 50 No. 6, pg. 688-700

http://0-

www.tandfonline.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/17449855.2013.877958

3. Robinson A. & Tormey S., ‘Resisting ‘Global Justice’: Disrupting the Colonial

‘Emancipatory’ Logic of the West’, Third World Quarterly (2009) Vol. 30 No. 8, pg. 1395-

1409

http://0-

eds.b.ebscohost.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ef037fc4-

e60c-420d-b4a5-65ec665ec6e0%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&hid=104

4. Kangas A. and Salmenniemi S, ‘Decolonizing Knowledge: Neoliberalism Beyond the

Three Worlds’, Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory (2016), Vol. 17 No. 2, pg. 210-227

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2016.1184174

5. Quijano A., ‘Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America’, Nepantla: Views

from South (2000) Vol 1 No. 3, pg. 533-580

https://www.unc.edu/~aescobar/wan/wanquijano.pdf

6. Dirlik A., ‘Spectres of the Third World: Global Modernity and the End of the Three Worlds’,

Third World Quarterly (2004) Vol. 25 No. 1, pg. 131-148

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0143659042000185372

7. Khadse A., ‘Taking Agroecology to Scale: The Zero Budget Natural

Farming Peasant Movement in Karnataka’ The Journal of Peasant Studies (2017) pg.1-28

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1276450

21
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

8. Nandy A., ‘History's Forgotten Doubles’, History and Theory (1995) Vol. 34, No. 2, pg. 44-

66

http://0-www.jstor.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/stable/pdf/2505434.pdf

9. Kapoor D., ‘Subaltern Social Movement (SSM) Post-Mortems of Development in India:

Locating Trans-Local Activism and Radicalism’, Journal of Asian and African

Studies (2011) Vol. 46 No. 2, pg. 130-148

http://0-

journals.sagepub.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0021909610395889

10. Dunford R., ‘Peasant Activism and the Rise of Food Sovereignty: Decolonising

and Democratising Norm Diffusion?’, European Journal of International

Relations (2017) Vol. 23 No. 1, pg. 145-167

http://0-

journals.sagepub.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/1354066115614382

11. Veronelli G.A., ‘The Coloniality of Language: Race, Expressivity, Power, and the Darker

Side of Modernity’, Wagadu Volume (2015) Vol. 13, pg. 108-134

12. Fridell G.,‘Fair-Trade Coffee and Commodity Fetishism: The Limits of Market-Driven

Social Justice’, Historical Materialism (2007) Vol. 15 No. 4, pg. 79-104

http://0-

booksandjournals.brillonline.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/content/journals/10.1163/156

920607x245841

13. Navlakha G. and Gupta A., ‘The Real Divide in Bastar’, Economic and Political Weekly

(2009) Vol. 44 No. 33, pg. 20-21

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25663440

22
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

14. Navlakha G., ‘Days and Nights in the Maoist Heartland’, Economic and Political Weekly

(2010) Vol. 45 No. 16, pg. 38-47

http://0-www.jstor.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/stable/pdf/25664356.pdf

15. Bhalla G.S., ‘Peasant Movement and Agrarian Change in India’, Social Scientist (1983)

Vol. 11 No. 8, pg. 39-57

http://0-www.jstor.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/stable/pdf/3517049.pdf

16. Nayar J., ‘The Politics of Hope and the Other-in-the-World: Thinking Exteriority’, Law

Critique (2013) Vol. 24 No. 1, pg. 63-85

http://0-

download.springer.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/static/pdf/452/art%253A10.1007%252

Fs10978-012-9115-8.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2F0-

link.springer.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs10978-012-

9115-

8&token2=exp=1492350074~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F452%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25

252Fs10978-012-9115-

8.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10

.1007%252Fs10978-012-9115-

8*~hmac=cd63fd589f16bdcd3b2f23bbacfa9ee1ad627a31b60a95942be266504048c97a

17. Pattenden J., ‘A Neo-liberalization of Civil Society? Self-Help Groups and the Labouring

Class Poor in South India’, The Journal of Peasant Studies (2010) Vol. 37 No. 3, pg. 485-

512

18. Peschand K., ‘Farmer’s Rights and Food Sovereignty: Critical Insights from India’, The

Journal of Peasant Studies (2014) Vol. 41 No. 6, pg. 1085-1108

23
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.937338

19. Peschard K., ‘Seed Wars and Farmer’s Rights: Comparative Perspectives from Brazil and

India’, The Journal of Peasant Studies (2017) Vol. 44 No. 1, pg. 144-168

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1191471

20. Subramanian K.S., ‘Reflections on Naxalism in Chhattisgarh’, Economic and Political

Weekly (2006) Vol. 41 No. 4, pg. 310-311

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4417726

21. Temper L., Martinez-Alier J., ‘The God of the Mountain and Godavaram: Net Present

Value, Indigenous Territorial Rights and Sacredness in a Bauxite Mining Conflict in India’,

Ecological Economics (2013) Vol. 96, pg. 79-87

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.011

22. Vishwanath L.S., ‘Peasant Movements in Colonial India: An Examination of Some

Conceptual Frameworks’, Economic and Political Weekly (1990) Vol. 25, No. 2 pg. 118-

122

http://0-www.jstor.org.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/stable/pdf/4395809.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.656268

23. Robbins M.J., ‘Exploring the ‘Localization’ Dimension of Food Sovereignty’ (2015) Vol 36

No. 3, pg. 449-468

http://0-

eds.a.ebscohost.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=c05a7739-

1e4f-4801-9424-6d9a1360b11f%40sessionmgr4006&vid=1&hid=4108

24
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

24. Levien M., ‘The Land Question: Special Economic Zones and the Political Economy of

Dispossession in India’, The Journal of Peasant Studies (2012) Vol. 39 No. 3-4, pg. 933-

969

25. Assadi M., ‘Globalization and the State: Interrogating the Farmer’s Movement in

India’, Journal of Social and Economic Development (2002) Vol. 4 No. 1, pg. 42-

54 http://www.isec.ac.in/JSED/JSED_V4_I1_42-54.pdf

26. Sundar N., ‘‘Winning Hearts and Minds’: Emotional Wars and the Construction of

Difference’, Third World Quarterly (2012) Vol. 33 No. 4, pg. 701-717

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2012.657428

27. Sundar N., ‘Debating Dussehra and Reinterpreting Rebellion in Bastar District, Central

India’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (2001) Vol. 7 No. 1, pg. 19-35

http://0-onlinelibrary.wiley.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/1467-

9655.00048/pdf;jsessionid=8865D029568C989097D169185F8E6311.f01t02?systemMessa

ge=Pay+Per+View+on+Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+15th+

April+from+12%3A00-

09%3A00+EDT+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

28. Banarjee P., ‘Writing the Adivasi: Some Historiographical Notes’, The Indian Economic and

Social History Review (2016) Vol. 53 No. 1, pg. 131-153

http://0-

journals.sagepub.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0019464615619549

30. Dasgupta S., ‘Introduction: Reading the Archive Reframing ‘Adivasi’ Histories’, The Indian

Economic and Social History Review (2016) Vol. 53 No. 1, pg. 1-8

25
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

http://0-

journals.sagepub.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0019464615619527

31. Dasgupta S., ‘Mapping Histories: Many Narrarives of Tana Pasts’, The Indian Economic

and Social History Review (2016) Vol. 53 No. 1, pg. 99-129

http://0-

journals.sagepub.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0019464615619546

32. Dasgupta S., ‘‘Heathen aboriginals’, ‘Christian Tribes’, and ‘Animistic Races’: Missionary

Narrative on the Oraons of Chhotanagpur in Colonial India’, Modern Asian Studies (2016)

Vol. 50 No. 2, pg. 437-478

http://0-

search.proquest.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/docview/1763009789/fulltextPDF/E330E

4E5F6264E9FPQ/1?accountid=14888

33. Krishna S., ‘Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Destitution: Law, Race, and Human

Security’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political (2015) Vol. 40 No. 2, pg. 85-101

http://0-

journals.sagepub.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1177/0304375415590909

34. Kela S., ‘Adivasi and Peasant: Reflections on Indian Social History’, The Journal

of Peasant Studies (2006) Vol. 33 No. 3, pg. 502-525

http://0-

www.tandfonline.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/03066150601063074

35. Nagel T., ‘The Problem of Global Justice’, Philosophy & Public Affairs (2005) Vol. 33 No.

2, pg. 113-147

26
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

http://0-onlinelibrary.wiley.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1088-

4963.2005.00027.x/pdf?systemMessage=Pay+Per+View+on+Wiley+Online+Library+will

+be+unavailable+on+Saturday+15th+April+from+12%3A00-

09%3A00+EDT+for+essential+maintenance.++Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

36. Pogge T., ‘Real World Justice’, The Journal of Ethics (2005) Vol. 9 No. 1/2, pg. 29–53

http://0-

download.springer.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/static/pdf/234/art%253A10.1007%252

Fs10892-004-3313-z.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2F0-

link.springer.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk%2Farticle%2F10.1007%2Fs10892-004-

3313-

z&token2=exp=1492349202~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F234%2Fart%25253A10.1007%25

252Fs10892-004-3313-

z.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.

1007%252Fs10892-004-3313-

z*~hmac=968273828566c4b7c25f6a10737e620f36043e66153104f3d4871ef61a110228

37. Mignolo W.D., ‘Delinking: The Rhetoric of Modernity, the Logic of Coloniality and the

Grammar of De-coloniality’, Cultural Studies (2007) Vol. 21 No. 2-3, pg. 449-514

https://docs.ufpr.br/~clarissa/pdfs/DeLinking_Mignolo2007.pdf

Cases and Statutes

1. Orissa Mining Corpn. Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, (2013) 6 SCC 47

2. Criminal Tribes Act, 1871

file:///C:/Users/u1666129/Downloads/CriminalTribesAct1871.pdf

27
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

3. Land Acquisition Act, 1894

http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Land%20Acquisition/bill167_20080311167_The_

Land_Acquisition_Act__1894.pdf

5. The National Food Security Act, 2013

http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/202013.pdf

6. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013

http://indiacode.nic.in/acts-in-pdf/302013.pdf

7. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)

Act, 2006

http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ind77867.pdf

Newspaper Articles

1. Environment Support Group, ‘Bangloreans Join Hands with the Global Movement

against Monsanto and for Safe Food’ (15th October 2013)

http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/press/bangaloreans-join-hands-global-movement-

.html

2. Lobby Watch, ‘Karnataka Bans Monsanto’s BT Cotton Seeds’ (11th August 2002)

http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=676

3. India Climate Dialogue, ‘Climate-Resilient Organic Cotton Makes a Come Back’

(26th October 2016)

http://indiaclimatedialogue.net/2016/10/26/climate-resilient-0rganic-cotton-stages-

comeback/

28
 Warwick ID No. – 1666129

4. Survival, ‘David v. Goliath: Indian Tribe in ‘Stunning’ Victory over Mining Giant’

(24th August 2010)

http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/6385

5. Survival, ‘Ban Upheld: Avatar Tribe ‘to Decide’ Future of Vedanta Mine’-,

(18th April2013)

http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/9155

6. Survival, ‘Dongaria Tribe’s View to be Heard in Indian Supreme Court’ (14th April 2016)

http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/11211

7. Survival, ‘Thousands Join Rally of Defiance as Vedant Mine Ruling Postponed’

(7th December 2012)

http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/8863

8. Survival, ‘Rallying Cry: Dongaria Stand Firm against Vedanta Mine’ (13th June 2013)

http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/9302

29