Adivasis as Ecological Warriors: Colonial Laws and Post-Colonial Adivasi Resistance in India’s Jharkhand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See attached document

Author Response

 In 
other words, it may be worthwhile situating this study within a wider international 
literature. For instance, it could be useful to think through the major contributions of 
Subaltern Studies in relation to a wider international literature on social movements.  

Ans. This paper deals with small ecological movements led by indigenes to protect their landscape so definitely the emphasis is on situating it in their landscape, but I have revised a major section of the paper in light of the review comments and have brought many changes in it. To give it a broader frame a paragraph (Page 3 Para 2; page 7) has been added to situate the debate in the context of the movements conducted elsewhere in the world. 

 

Comment 2: One possible place to start, amongst many, could be Marc Edelman’s (2001:285) 
extensive review of the social movement literature. Although this overview was written 
over two decades ago and focuses on Euro-America (including South and Latin 
America), it provides a useful overview of the history of social movement studies.

Ans: The works of  Edelman, Eckstein, Escobar and Alvarez have been incorporated to understand the global context of the movement and build the argument in favour of Indigenous ecological movements (Page 3 Para 1).

Comment 3:  The case 
of the Adivasi ‘ecological warriors’ could then be situated within a wider comparative 
context. This could include an engagement with ongoing debates about agency and 
resistance initiated by a range of Subaltern Studies and social movement scholars. 

Ans: The suggestion was beneficial in streamlining and improvising the paper and now the 'ecological warrior' debate has been discussed from the very beginning (para 2 Page 3) and it keeps emerging within the paper besides page 3 and 4 and tries to explain how these three movements become witness to the transformation of Adivasis in becoming 'ecological warriors'. Some other studies over Adivasi development-induced displacement have been added (para1, page 7) to understand the debate clearly. Additionally, the idea of indigenes as discussed by Virginius Xaxa and Biswamoy Pati have also been added to  improvise the essay. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is an interesting case study of three tribal movements in Jharkhand and offers some good insights into the complexity of nature versus development debate in the state. I am only pointing to some inconsistencies present in the article that should be addressed before publishing it. 

1. Adivasi as a category has been studied by a number of scholars such as Virginious Xaxa, Biswamoy Pati and others whose works clearly show that there was an evolutionary thinking related with the term that led to treating  them at a particular stage of socio-cultural and biological evolution. It is important to mention how this ideology informed colonial and postcolonial thinking along with similar ideas presented in the paper. It was one strand of colonial thinking.

2. The author needs to mention that internal collaborators (Indian middlemen) of the colonial Raj known as Dikus were equally responsible for the exploitation of the adivasis in India rather than presenting the case in a binary form. It was the whole nexus of exploitation.

3. Some ideas are repeated such as lines 38 and 64-66.

5. There is inconsistency in terms of citations. Use only in-text or foot notes. Notes at the bottom of the page should be reserved only for extra information if the journal uses in-text citations.

6. The concept of ecological warriors are not properly introduced in the paper. It appears only in the conclusion with some definition. This definition should be brought much earlier in the paper when it used for the first time while reflecting upon how individual actors became ecological warriors or were revolutionized in some capacity.

7.    All the stated objectives scattered throughout the paper should be brought at one place. It leaves the reader speculating about what are the main objectives. 

8. The author claims that these were largely peaceful protests but two incidents suggest otherwise. Burning a police van and taking a policeman as a hostage are not non-violent/peaceful protests. Perhaps rephrase that these movements have largely been peaceful and non-violent with sporadic incidents of conflicts.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall the quality of English is perfect. But there are some minor grammatical errors. For instance, in line 119, visit should be plural.

Please remove 'the' in line 206. 

The English translation of Koel Karo Jan Sangharsh Samiti appear when it is used for the first time. 

Images 5 and 6 look same. You should consider removing one of them.

It should be carriers not careers in line 489. 

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: . Adivasi as a category has been studied by a number of scholars such as Virginious Xaxa, Biswamoy Pati and others whose works clearly show that there was an evolutionary thinking related with the term that led to treating  them at a particular stage of socio-cultural and biological evolution. It is important to mention how this ideology informed colonial and postcolonial thinking along with similar ideas presented in the paper. It was one strand of colonial thinking.

Response 1: The suggestion has been accepted and the studies of Edelman, Eckstein, Escobar and Alvarez have been incorporated (para1, page 3) to situate the debate in global context. Virginius Xaxa's idea of indigenous people and their connection to their natural and ecological spaces has been included(Para 1, page 6). The concept of Diku as a despised outsider that is popular amongst the Adivasis of central India and Biswamoy Pati's reading finds mention in the revised draft(Para3, page 3).

Comment 2: . The author needs to mention that internal collaborators (Indian middlemen) of the colonial Raj known as Dikus were equally responsible for the exploitation of the adivasis in India rather than presenting the case in a binary form. It was the whole nexus of exploitation.

Response 2: The idea of Diku that is ingrained in the Adivasi minds since colonial period and that continues in manifest ways in the post-colonial period finds mention in (Para 3, page 3; Para 1, Page 4) of the revised draft.

Comment 3: Some ideas are repeated such as lines 38 and 64-66.

Response 3: In the light of reviewers' comments a major portion of the paper has been revised and the inconsistencies have been done away with. These lines are also removed from the revised draft.

Comment 5: There is inconsistency in terms of citations. Use only in-text or foot notes. Notes at the bottom of the page should be reserved only for extra information if the journal uses in-text citations.

Response 5: These inconsistencies have been addressed and the paper is now revised.

Comment 6: The concept of ecological warriors are not properly introduced in the paper. It appears only in the conclusion with some definition. This definition should be brought much earlier in the paper when it used for the first time while reflecting upon how individual actors became ecological warriors or were revolutionized in some capacity.

Response 6: This was an apt and wise suggestion and this has been reworked in a major way in the paper in which the argument for ecological warrior is now mentioned at several places. Kindly find the debate at justifications for calling Adivasi ecological warriors  in Para 2, page 3; para1, page 6; para 2, page 7; para1 page 13; para 3, page 20. I hope this addresses the suggestions.

Comment 7: All the stated objectives scattered throughout the paper should be brought at one place. It leaves the reader speculating about what are the main objectives. 

Response 7: In light of your suggestion the entire paper has been thoroughly revised  and the arguments are now in coherence with the stated objective of the paper.

Comment 8: The author claims that these were largely peaceful protests but two incidents suggest otherwise. Burning a police van and taking a policeman as a hostage are not non-violent/peaceful protests. Perhaps rephrase that these movements have largely been peaceful and non-violent with sporadic incidents of conflicts.

Response 8: I disagree with this statement. To support my argument I would like to mention that the non-violent struggle for independence of India led by Gandhiji witnessed many violent acts be it non- co-operation movement, civil disobedience movement or Quit India movement. Yet, the nature and essence of Gandhian movements was non-violent and history has accepted it as such. Similarly, these movements have stray incidences of violence but are largely peaceful therefore my argument justifies the statements made in the paper.

Comment 9: Images 5 and 6 look same. You should consider removing one of them.

Response 9: Image 6 has been removed as per your suggestion. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the topic is an interesting and important one, this paper is not presented in a way that would help the reader appreciate how the author’s research is contributing to generating, supporting or refuting key arguments. This is partly related to the vagueness of the writing in many places, where the logical connection between sentences is difficult to follow. For example, the sentences in this paragraph jumps from idea to idea: p.4 “However, the representation of Adivasi as 'the other' by mainstream is no less significant. This highlights forest-centric status, which distinguishes them from the peasant societies. Sen (2018) argues that this makes their origin myths important but does not deny the possibility of various others. This deviation from uniformity and specified structures where autonomy and self-sufficiency are at the root of their existence is the marker of Adivasi selfhood.”

Apart from the quality of the writing, the paper is weakened by the failure to distinguish between what the extant literature has to say about environmental movements among the Adivasis (i.e. through a critical review of the relevant literature) and how the author’s research provides a fresh angle that helps us understand the issues differently (i.e. how the author’s primary fieldwork and documentary analysis contributes to furthering our understanding). The result is an entangled and somewhat repetitive narrative that contains assertions with no clear indication whether they are supported by primary or secondary evidence). In other words, scholarly writing requires arguments to be carefully supported, combining sources of evidence which must be clearly indicated at every juncture.

The paper also suffers from a lack of development in the arguments put forward. While the main argument the author wishes to make is clearly stated at the start (i.e. how the Adivasis’ struggle to assert their customary rights transforms them into ‘ecological warriors’), how the argument develops as the different sections progresses is not clear. In short, the material/evidence needs to be analysed (not just presented) to show how it contributes to the paper’s main argument. The following provides more guidance on the sections:

·         From what I can glean, Section 3 is about the Adivasis’ ‘self-perception’ as ‘ecological warriors’ vis-à-vis social constructions (by powerful elites) as ‘other’. Unfortunately, the writing in this section is rather vague and the reader does not come away with a clear idea of how (and on what basis) the Adivasis construct their ‘environmental selfhood’.

·         Sections 4-6 provide details of three movements/resistance. These sections contain rich information but are not crafted into clear arguments that would contribute to developing the main line of argument (how the Adivasis are transformed through each movement into ‘ecological warriors’). My sense is the author needs to cut down on detail and show how each case study adds a dimension to the main argument. In other words, focus not so much on presenting information but selecting and analyzing the evidence to show how the Adivasis asserted their ‘self-perception’ as ‘ecological warriors’ in their struggle (often against state repression), and with what effects (i.e. explain where and why they were successful and when they were not).

·         The conclusion (Section 7) needs a more academic tone to bring the findings of earlier sections to a broader level. More needs to be said about how “their struggles have generated debates and discussions over the model of development adopted by the state vis-a-vis Adivasi models of co-existence with nature.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper does require a round of language editing to correct errors and also to smoothen out sentence construction. A more academic tone with more care in putting across viewpoints is also needed.

Author Response

Comment 1: This is partly related to the vagueness of the writing in many places, where the logical connection between sentences is difficult to follow. 

Response 1:  I am grateful to you for your sharp observation and wise comments. Indeed the earlier draft had some vagueness and jumped from idea to idea, as you have rightly pointed out. I have completely revised the paper on your suggestion and have tried to bring one idea at one place. I have tried to maintain the connectivity in the sentences. In changing paragraphs also, this draft has tried to maintain the rhythm and flow of arguments.  I sincerely hope and am keeping my fingers crossed to see if the revision is approved by you.

Comments 2: Apart from the quality of the writing, the paper is weakened by the failure to distinguish between what the extant literature has to say about environmental movements among the Adivasis (i.e. through a critical review of the relevant literature) 

Response 2: I have worked to uplift the quality of writing in this draft. The paper has been majorly revised as per your suggetsions. The relevant literature has been consulted and Edelman, Eckstein, Escobar and Alvarez, Gadgil and Guha, Virginius Xaxa, Biswamoy Pati, Dev Nathan and H. Dayal, Patrick Oskarsson, Nandini Sundar, Esha Shah et al have been added to this draft.

 Comments 3: how the author’s research provides a fresh angle that helps us understand the issues differently (i.e. how the author’s primary fieldwork and documentary analysis contributes to furthering our understanding). 

Response 3: The paper with the revision tries to build the argument of 'Adivasis as ecological warriors' by connecting the threads passing through these three movements to the ecology and indigeneity debate. The primary and secondary sources cited in the paper attempt to make the readers understand that the ecological future of the planet rests in the hands of these small movements and protection of small communities in their spaces.

Comments 4:  In other words, scholarly writing requires arguments to be carefully supported, combining sources of evidence which must be clearly indicated at every juncture.

Response 4: This comment of yours left me thinking and I had to rework the entire draft to make it supportive of the ideas I extend. I have tried to analyse the movements now at every juncture. The essay now incorporates the studies conducted on development-induced displacement in Central India conducted by scholars as Felix Padel and Samrendra Das, A.K Haldar, Gerard Heuze, P.K Dasgupta, S. Banerjee, Amit Prakash, Nandini Sundar and others. The interventions of state is discussed through acts and policies,  judicial interventions and other such steps. Adivasi responses through upholding of customary institutions, religious places and sacred spaces have also been highlighted prominently.

Comment 5: The paper also suffers from a lack of development in the arguments put forward. While the main argument the author wishes to make is clearly stated at the start (i.e. how the Adivasis’ struggle to assert their customary rights transforms them into ‘ecological warriors’), how the argument develops as the different sections progresses is not clear. In short, the material/evidence needs to be analysed (not just presented) to show how it contributes to the paper’s main argument.

Response 5: After my above-stated response I would request you to see para 2, page 3; para 1, page 6; para 1, page 7; para 1, page 13; para 3, page 20 for greater clarity.

Comment 6: Section 3 is about the Adivasis’ ‘self-perception’ as ‘ecological warriors’ vis-à-vis social constructions (by powerful elites) as ‘other’. Unfortunately, the writing in this section is rather vague and the reader does not come away with a clear idea of how (and on what basis) the Adivasis construct their ‘environmental selfhood’.

Response 6: The section 3 has been majorly revised to undo inconsistencies. I hope this draft is more clear in presenting the argument.

Comment 7 : 

• Sections 4-6 provide details of three movements/resistance. These sections contain rich information but are not crafted into clear arguments that would contribute to developing the main line of argument (how the Adivasis are transformed through each movement into ‘ecological warriors’). My sense is the author needs to cut down on detail and show how each case study adds a dimension to the main argument. In other words, focus not so much on presenting information but selecting and analyzing the evidence to show how the Adivasis asserted their ‘self-perception’ as ‘ecological warriors’ in their struggle (often against state repression), and with what effects (i.e. explain where and why they were successful and when they were not).
• Response 7: Details have been cut down. Nearly, 1200 words have been shredded from sections 4-6, which provided details of the movement. In place of these, new paragraphs have been added to analyse the arguments. Kindly see page 13,17, 18 and 20.

Comment 8: The conclusion (Section 7) needs a more academic tone to bring the findings of earlier sections to a broader level. More needs to be said about how “their struggles have generated debates and discussions over the model of development adopted by the state vis-a-vis Adivasi models of co-existence with nature.”

Response 8 : More sharpness has been added to conclusion. Language has been reworked throughout the entire paper with emphasis on flow, connectivity and coherence. However, I have deliberately kept the language simple to reach wider group of scholars, 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Unfortunately, this is not a successful revision. While the author has added more references, concepts, background information and empirical detail, the argumentation has not improved. The earlier round of comments has not been satisfactorily addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is little by way of improvement. The earlier comments still applies. "The paper does require a round of language editing to correct errors and also to smoothen out sentence construction. A more academic tone with more care in putting across viewpoints is also needed."

Author Response

Comment- Unfortunately, this is not a successful revision. While the author has added more references, concepts, background information and empirical detail, the argumentation has not improved. The earlier round of comments has not been satisfactorily addressed.

Response - In light of the reviewer suggestion the argument has been widened and more theorisation has been added to the introduction section. All the changes to the revised draft are highlighted in yellow for convenience.

Comment 2- The paper does require a round of language editing to correct errors and also to smoothen out sentence construction. A more academic tone with more care in putting across viewpoints is also needed.

Response 2- The language has been reworked and I have tried to smoothen it, to the best of my ability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx