Geographical Factors in the Political Development of Himalayan State

1. Geographical Factors in thePolitical Development ofHimalayan State Rajiv Rawat CAGONT, Ottawa, OntarioOctober 29, 2005

2. Within the Context ofGlobal-Local Realities • The Experience ofUttaranchal State 2000-2005 • A struggle over Nomenclature • A struggle over Assembly Seat Delimitation • In depth examination of the struggle over Capital Location

3. Uttaranchal at a Glance Gairsain H I G H L A N D S Dehradun P L A I N S INDIA State Population: 8.5 million Dehradun Population: 500,000 Urban to Rural Ratio: 1:3 Plains to Hills Ratio: 8:9 – (Indian Census 2001)

4. Case Study: Uttaranchal • The hill state of Uttaranchal was carved out of Uttar Pradesh state in 2000 after a peaceful struggle by highlanders for local autonomy. (i.e., Uttarakhand Andolan) • Affirmation of distinct cultural and political identity based on shared geography stressed as the prerequisite for development of the region.

5. Nomenclature • “Uttarakhand” preferred name by local people. Coined by separate state movement based on ancient texts (literally, “North Country”) • “Uttaranchal” coined by BJP for its allegedly less separatist connotations (i.e., “Vananchal” instead of “Jharkhand”) • Restoration of original name sought by activists, affirmed by governor in 2002 & state assembly in 2005. Awaiting confirmation from central government. • Akin to “Irish Free State” vs. “Eire” Debate of 1922 and restoration of vernacular city names throughout India.

6. Assembly Seat Delimitation • First delimitation completed in 2001 in time for state assembly elections. Based on 1971 census. • New delimitation exercise based on 2001 census would give majority of seats to plains districts. • Opposed by hill politicians who want area based delimitation to retain balance of power to hill districts in keeping with mission of the new state.

7. Capital City Location • Dehradun appointed provisional capital for an indefinite period over objections of many movement activists. • Ongoing movement for permanent capital in the highlands proper. • Represents like nomenclature and delimitation, a continuation of the Uttarakhand movement.

8. Capital Cities, Cities of Capital • Most, but not all capital cities are also a country’s largest city. • Focal point of economic development, political administration, public sphere. • De facto cosmopolitan due to its diplomatic linkages, governmental institutions, & economic opportunities that draw citizens from throughout country.

9. Imagining a Nation • As seats of state power, capitals serve to define the national identity. • Capitals can either invoke or submerge history depending on the ideological needs of the state. • Capitals represent the country to the world.

10. Some Changes in Capital Cities Brazil, 1950s Nigeria, 1990s Malawi, 1980s

11. Case Study: Kazakhstan

12. Dehradun Gairsain 3600-8000m 2400-3600m 1200-2400m 0-1200m

13. Why Dehradun? • Large, well connected city, yet peripherally located within new state • Amongst the most cosmopolitan mid-sized cities in India • Location of many eminent governmental & educational institutions • Reputation for salubrious climate (although currently strained by excessive pollution & unsustainable growth)

14. Political Factors • Alleviates irredentist claims of plains districts where opposition to statehood was strongest. • Close to the plains & continued control from New Delhi. • Allows for continued dominance of bureaucracy & Capital.

15. A Warning from Bolivia • Autonomous movement of Santa Cruz emerged in response to highland indigenous agitation for control over nation’s natural resources. • Similar to claims by plains districts of domination by highlanders and their bid to return to Uttar Pradesh.

16. Dehradun’s Unmentionables • Dominated by an “English colonial sub-culture” that has geographically segmented the city along class lines. • City’s Cosmopolitanism is in fact composed of an ethnic hierarchy with the titular nationalities in the middle. • Interim capital status has already aggravated environmental problems in the valley, leading to a majority of residents opposing this new status.

17. Why Gairsain? • Central geographical location between Garhwal & Kumaon, the two titular nationalities of Uttarakhand. • Situated in the hills proper thus deliberately inhabiting the “lifeworld” of poorest citizens. • Seen as a solution to severe underdevelopment in the hills. • Seen by some as an opportunity for a fresh start in the modernist fashion.

18. Uniqueness of Gairsain • The modernist impulse for a brave new capital is lacking, particularly in an era of modesty & lowered expectations. • Gairsain deliberately small & isolated in keeping with the lived experienced of the supposed beneficiaries of the new state. • Symbol of an alternative vision of modernity & development based on Himalayan geography and “La Realidad” of rural poverty. • Perceived as creating a government accountable & close to its people.

19. Gairsain as a Social Movement • No charismatic leader with a vision, but a multiplicity of voices. • Strongly coupled with the autonomy movement. • Anti-colonial heritage: village is strongly associated with freedom fighter Chander Singh Garhwali, hence the move to rename it Chandranagar. • Gairsain movement is led by women who form the majority in the hill districts, but a shrinking minority in the plains.

20. Female Majority Male Majority Male Majority

21. Empowering the Local • Gairsain Movement not anti-cosmopolitan as it is supported by progressive forces in the state. • Key issue is neglect of rural poor by city bureaucracy where powerful lobbies & vested interests rule. • Gairsain ensures mobility of government from community to community. Derhadun leads to entrenchment in plains. • As geographic factors will always favour plains, a capital in the hills proper would only ensure some measure of balance.

22. Global Dominant/Developed Individuality HybridizedIdentity Dynamic – Economic Open – Cosmopolitan Gendered Masculine Local Reactive/Backward Community Tribal/Authentic Identity Static – Cultural Closed – Parochial Gendered Feminine – (Ley, 2004) Classical Global-Local Binaries

23. Beyond Binaries • Evident that most academic discourse biased against the Local – “Globe Talk” as master discourse (Robertson, 1992) • Even arguments that seek to afford agency to the Local stress their capacity to cope & hybridize, rather than autonomy (Jackson, 2004). • Defense of the Local often left to reactionary, conservative forces, e.g., rural-urban political divide.

24. All Possible Futures • The success of Gairsain will rest on the ability of its proponents to articulate a clear vision in keeping with the goals of their movement. • Geographic centrality must serve as a bridge to all regions, not just isolated pocket surrounding Gairsain. • This “alternative modernity” where local democracy is paramount would make the move worthwhile, otherwise the vision may get lost in the grand modernist delusions of the past (Linkenback, 2000).

25. Most Importantly… • While empowering the Local, a capital at Gairsain could balance development policy in the state. • It would ensure the survival of the Local by this act of physical affirmation & embodiment. • It would overcome the global-local binary by bringing the global to the local & vice-versa in keeping with the evolving political and cultural identity of the state.