为老虎呐喊:霸权、权威和印度强占保护政权的意志

IF 1.4 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Oxford Development Studies Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/13600818.2022.2028134
Asmita Kabra, Budhaditya Das
{"title":"为老虎呐喊:霸权、权威和印度强占保护政权的意志","authors":"Asmita Kabra, Budhaditya Das","doi":"10.1080/13600818.2022.2028134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Dispossession of rural populations to create inviolate Protected Areas for biodiversity conservation is a shared concern in BRICS countries. This article explores the distinctive ideology, institutions, and actors that constitute the regime of dispossession for conservation (DfC) in India’s tiger reserves. It investigates the reasons for the regime’s continued stability and resilience in the neoliberal era, when land-taking for industrial development has become highly contentious. India’s conservationist state has effectively denied resource rights to the inhabitants of Tiger Reserves and displaced them through its Voluntary Relocation Scheme, which is posited as a win-win solution for tigers and tribals. The historically unequal relationship between the state and forest dwellers necessitates closely examining hegemonic processes through which volition for relocation is assembled. This article argues that the Dispossession for Conservation regime assembles volition through a complex interplay of its hegemony and authority with the unfulfilled development aspirations of India’s forest dwellers.","PeriodicalId":51612,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Development Studies","volume":"50 1","pages":"44 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aye for the tiger: hegemony, authority, and volition in India’s regime of dispossession for conservation\",\"authors\":\"Asmita Kabra, Budhaditya Das\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13600818.2022.2028134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Dispossession of rural populations to create inviolate Protected Areas for biodiversity conservation is a shared concern in BRICS countries. This article explores the distinctive ideology, institutions, and actors that constitute the regime of dispossession for conservation (DfC) in India’s tiger reserves. It investigates the reasons for the regime’s continued stability and resilience in the neoliberal era, when land-taking for industrial development has become highly contentious. India’s conservationist state has effectively denied resource rights to the inhabitants of Tiger Reserves and displaced them through its Voluntary Relocation Scheme, which is posited as a win-win solution for tigers and tribals. The historically unequal relationship between the state and forest dwellers necessitates closely examining hegemonic processes through which volition for relocation is assembled. This article argues that the Dispossession for Conservation regime assembles volition through a complex interplay of its hegemony and authority with the unfulfilled development aspirations of India’s forest dwellers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51612,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Development Studies\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"44 - 61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Development Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2022.2028134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Development Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2022.2028134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

剥夺农村人口以建立不可侵犯的生物多样性保护保护区是金砖国家共同关注的问题。本文探讨了独特的意识形态、制度和行为者,这些意识形态、制度和行为者构成了印度老虎保护区的保护剥夺制度(DfC)。它调查了新自由主义时代政权持续稳定和恢复的原因,当时工业发展的土地征用已经成为高度争议。印度的自然资源保护主义者实际上剥夺了老虎保护区居民的资源权利,并通过自愿搬迁计划将他们转移,该计划被认为是老虎和部落的双赢解决方案。历史上,国家和森林居民之间的不平等关系要求我们仔细审视霸权进程,通过这些霸权进程,重新安置的意愿得以集结。本文认为,“为保护而剥夺土地”制度通过其霸权和权威与印度森林居民未实现的发展愿望的复杂相互作用,集合了意志。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Aye for the tiger: hegemony, authority, and volition in India’s regime of dispossession for conservation
ABSTRACT Dispossession of rural populations to create inviolate Protected Areas for biodiversity conservation is a shared concern in BRICS countries. This article explores the distinctive ideology, institutions, and actors that constitute the regime of dispossession for conservation (DfC) in India’s tiger reserves. It investigates the reasons for the regime’s continued stability and resilience in the neoliberal era, when land-taking for industrial development has become highly contentious. India’s conservationist state has effectively denied resource rights to the inhabitants of Tiger Reserves and displaced them through its Voluntary Relocation Scheme, which is posited as a win-win solution for tigers and tribals. The historically unequal relationship between the state and forest dwellers necessitates closely examining hegemonic processes through which volition for relocation is assembled. This article argues that the Dispossession for Conservation regime assembles volition through a complex interplay of its hegemony and authority with the unfulfilled development aspirations of India’s forest dwellers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Oxford Development Studies
Oxford Development Studies DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Oxford Development Studies is a multidisciplinary academic journal aimed at the student, research and policy-making community, which provides a forum for rigorous and critical analysis of conventional theories and policy issues in all aspects of development, and aims to contribute to new approaches. It covers a number of disciplines related to development, including economics, history, politics, anthropology and sociology, and will publish quantitative papers as well as surveys of literature.
期刊最新文献
Social equity and care for the earth: tensions and synergies in Latin America Non-contributory social protection for adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: a review of government programmes and impacts Social conflicts over the use of water resources in Chile: the role of social movements and business power ODS lecture, development studies association 2023 stories from the Global South: the interplay of climate science, ‘action’ and the implications for development Inequality in environmental risk exposure and procedural justice in the Matanza-Riachuelo River Basin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1