 |
Resettling
the shifting cultivators or persuading them to abandon their art and ‘shift’ to
settled agri-culture.
How does this reallyc affect the lives of these tribals?
The answer is: more than any outsider—that includes researchers, scientists, policy
makers et al—can
ever fathom |
Bearing the burden of bias
Impressed, are you? Then you will probably be surprised to know that shifting cultivators
have been labelled by many as the ‘scourge of forests’, and their method of
farming has been identified as the main cause of soil erosion and deforestation in the
tropics. A United Nations study on tropical forest resources of Asia says that a logged
area (where trees have been cut for commercial purposes) becomes deforested only when
shifting cultivators move into it—according to the study, commercial logging cannot
be considered as deforestation.
This study, in fact, is a very apt example. Of the immense, but often unjustified and
downright dishonest bias that exists against shifting cultivation, today.Hmm…you are
now confused. Why, you are wondering, would anyone want to heap abuses at and
destroy a system that embodies such a useful, time-tested and scientifically sound
tradition? Well, the real reasons are embedded in the pages of our history books. But
before I start turning back time, I will point out some of the distortions that have taken
place in the modern avtar (incarnation)of shifting cultivation that have actually helped
fuel this smear campaign.
Shortened cycles, eroded soil
Earlier, after the farmer moved on, the land used to be left fallow for at
least 20 to 30 years. The time required for the soil to rejuvenate itself, and to regain
its natural richness. Now the cycle has been shortened drastically—to not more than
four to five years, sometimes even less. This is just not long enough, say experts. For
example, in order to build up the nitrogen fertility in the soil to its original level, a
gap of at least ten years is essen-tial. But now, cultivation is resumed without
permitting the healing process. Result? the return from the lands is getting more and more
meagre, and the method in general is being branded as useless.
For
bamboo’s sake !…
And of course, there is the wood (or precious weeds like bamboo)-guzzling industrial
sector—Enemy Number One of the shifting cultivators. Lets take the example of the
north-eastern state of Nagaland. Here, jhum farmers (the local name of shifting
cultiva-tors), traditionally grew bamboo as secondary growth, after the forest was burnt,
as it was much easier to cut, dried rapidly, burnt well, and produced potashrich ashes
that acted as excellent fertiliser for the soil.
 But
then the situation changed rather drastically. Wood and bamboo became much-in-demand
commodities for the wood and paper industry. The Nagaland paper mill came up, amidst acres
and acres of bamboo forests—fruit of generations of jhum farming. But to the powerful
paper barons burning precious bamboo for its fertiliser value was unacceptable. So jhum
was dismissed as being ‘wasteful’. The government agencies—eager to cater
to the demands of the industry heavyweights, geared up to control jhum and to resettle the
farmers.
Land ‘Bonding’
You see, for these communities this is not just an occupation. It is a lifestyle. It is
the primary force that held the village together. Because shifting cultivation thrives on
community ownership of land. In Assamese the word jhum means collective. Each household
has rights over its allotted patch, as long as it cultivates it. But after it is vacated
the land returns to the commu-nity. Among some tribes like the Nagas and Kukis of Manipur
all land is owned by the chief of the clan, who then distributes it to individuals.. In
this way shifting cultivation creates a strong social security network, that has endured
for centuries.
|
