Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Community Well-Being and The ‘invisible’ Subjectivities of Indigenous People: A Focus on The Irulas of The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Tamil Nadu, India


Affiliations
1 Keystone Foundation, PB 35, Groves Hill Road, Kotagiri 643 217, India
 

Barring a few advantages, human development index renders subjective characteristics experiences, and requirements of indigenous communities rather mute. In this article, we aim to highlight the relevance of community well-being as an appropriate tool to measure ‘development’ and highlight the nuances specific to indigenous communities, focusing on the Irulas of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve in Tamil Nadu. Overall, we found that individual well-being is an outcome of collective well-being, wherein social cohesiveness, traditional practices and cultural identity, all become paramount. These findings also align with the goals of progressive missions like the National Mission on Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing, pertinent in terms of reconciling the erstwhile disregard for development initiatives to indigenous concerns.

Keywords

Cultural Identity, Governance, Indigenous Communities, Livelihoods, Well-Being.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Krishnan, A., The National Mission on Biodiversity and Human Well-Being: for a greener, healthier, and more sustainable way of life. National Centre for Biological Sciences (on-line), 3 March 2020; http://news.ncbs.res.in/bigger-picture/national-mission-biodiversityand-human-well-being-greener-healthier-and-more

  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), India ranks 130 on 2018 Human Development Index. UNDP (on-line), 2018.

  • Comim, F., Beyond the HDI? Assessing alternative measures of human development from a capability perspective. UNDP, 2016.

  • Sen, A. K., Inequality Reexamined, Oxford University Press, 1992.

  • Wiseman, J. and Brasher, K., Community wellbeing in an unwell world: Trends, challenges, and possibilities. J. Publ. Health Policy, 2008, 29, 353–366.

  • Usher, P. J., Duhaime, G. and Searles, E., The household as an economic unit in arctic aboriginal communities and its measurement by means of a comprehensive survey. Soc. Indic. Res., 2003, 61, 175–202.

  • Kumaraswami, P., Culture, Identity, and Well-being, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, Social Life of Literature in Revolutionary Cuba, 2016, pp. 19–46.

  • Hallett, D., Chandler, M. J. and Lalonde, C. E., Aboriginal language knowledge and youth suicide. Cogn. Dev., 2007, 22(3), 392–399.

  • Senecal, S. et al., Applying the community well-being index and the human development index to Inuit in Canada, 2008: 148.

  • Drawson, A. S., Mushquash, A. R. and Mushquash, C. J., First nations community well-being research and large data sets: a respectful caution. Int. J. Indigenous Health, 2017, 12(2), 15–24.

  • Wood, S. L. and DeClerck, F., Ecosystems and human wellbeing in the sustainable development goals. Front. Ecol. Environ., 2015, 13(3), 123.

  • Blumberg, R. L., Income under female versus male control: hypotheses from a theory of gender stratification and data from the Third World. J. Family Issues, 1988, 9(1), 51–84.

  • Duflo, E. and Udry, C., Intra-household resource allocation in Cote D’ivoire: social norms, separate accounts and consumption choices. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 10498, 2004.

  • Kennedy, E. and Peters, P., Household food security and child nutrition: the interaction of income and gender of household head. World Dev., 1992, 20(8), 1077–1085.

  • Weiss, T. G., Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges. Third World Q., 2000, 21(5), 795–814.

  • Landesa, Land Rights (web); https://www.landesa.org/.

  • Grossman, L., The cultural ecology of economic development. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr., 1981, 71, 220–236.

  • Phinney, J. S. et al., Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: an interactional perspective. J. Soc. Sci., 2001, 57(3), 493–510.

  • Ramakrishnan, A., Rethinking Development and Environment in North Andaman. Econ. Polit. Wkly, 2019, 45–51.

  • Peluso, L. N. and Ribot, J., Postscript: a theory of access revisited. Soc. Nat. Resour., 2020, 33(2), 300–306.

  • Castree, N., The nature of produced nature: materiality and knowledge construction in Marxism. Antipode, 1995, 27(1), 12–48; doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.1995.tb00260.


Abstract Views: 442

PDF Views: 132




  • Community Well-Being and The ‘invisible’ Subjectivities of Indigenous People: A Focus on The Irulas of The Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract Views: 442  |  PDF Views: 132

Authors

Jyotsna Krishnakumar
Keystone Foundation, PB 35, Groves Hill Road, Kotagiri 643 217, India
Pratim Roy
Keystone Foundation, PB 35, Groves Hill Road, Kotagiri 643 217, India

Abstract


Barring a few advantages, human development index renders subjective characteristics experiences, and requirements of indigenous communities rather mute. In this article, we aim to highlight the relevance of community well-being as an appropriate tool to measure ‘development’ and highlight the nuances specific to indigenous communities, focusing on the Irulas of the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve in Tamil Nadu. Overall, we found that individual well-being is an outcome of collective well-being, wherein social cohesiveness, traditional practices and cultural identity, all become paramount. These findings also align with the goals of progressive missions like the National Mission on Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing, pertinent in terms of reconciling the erstwhile disregard for development initiatives to indigenous concerns.

Keywords


Cultural Identity, Governance, Indigenous Communities, Livelihoods, Well-Being.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv121%2Fi1%2F37-43