— Sharanya Kannan
The sixth panel of this year’s department conference took place on 11th April, Sunday, on the topic “Beyond the Anthropocene”. The session was moderated by Prof. Santhosh Abraham.
The first panelist, Susan Harris from IIT Delhi, presented a paper titled “Multispecies Configurations: Tracing the Umwelt in the City“. Her paper focussed on street dogs in Delhi in an attempt to investigate the relationship between the canine umwelt and a multi-species city. Ms. Harris suggested that the concept of umwelt, as proposed by Jakob von Uexküll accounts for the non-objective world of different life forms. The paper also touched upon the legal status of dogs and how it allowed for their continued existence.
Ms. Harris focussed on three aspects through which she analysed the presence of street dogs in the city: visibility, physicality and interdependence. She noted that visibility was “crucial” to analysing multi-species relationships in the anthropocene. Themes such as ubiquitousness of street dogs in the city and their perceived ‘out of place’ appearance despite their indigineity were covered.
The paper considered if space is a purely physical dimension while analysing non-human animals. It also looked into the conflict that can be created when humans must share space with non-human animals. There was discourse on the “storying of spaces” and how we must take into consideration the narratives of non-humans as well.
In the analysis of interdependence, the paper acknowledged the importance of interdependence in the anthropocene. Ms. Harris dissected the unique relationship between street dogs and garbage, and hypothesised that street dogs are “already workers in a multi-species workplace”. Ms. Harris concluded her presentation by suggesting that we must move beyond the anthropocentric perspectives of space as merely physical, and place more emphasis on the sharing of spaces with non-humans.
The second paper was a collaborative work by Suravee Nayak and Mijo Luke, doctoral scholars and the Centre for Development Studies. The paper was titled “Changing Spatitality and the Emergence of Environmental Politics: Explorations From Global South.” The paper was based on fieldwork carried out in two environmentally sensitive regions in India: the Talcher coal fields in Odisha, and the Thankamani village nestled in the highlands of Kerala. The paper aimed to look at the changing spatiality in these area and its impact on environmental politics.
The paper looked into the changing land use in both areas. While in Talcher, the land had been converted from agricultural use to coal mining, there was an increase in mixed crop cultivation in Thankamani. The paper also analysed the change in social relations in the two regions, examining the “intertwining relationship” between land ownership, land use and socio-economic relations. It suggested that the dominant communities were able to control the narratives of environmental politics in both regions, which sidelined the causes of the marginalised communities and exacerbated existing inequalities.
The paper concluded that the dominant communities had fared better in terms of livelihood in the face of the changing materiality of land. It noted that land had changed from a productive resource into a “speculative asset”.
The final paper was presented by Jonmani Das, a doctoral scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University and was titled “Negotiating the Environment: Territoriality and the Making of State Spaces in the Seventeenth Century Brahmaputra Valley“. The paper looked into how the terrain of the Brahmaputra Valley severely limited the Mughal Empire’s conquest in the region, as well as how the Mughals adapted to the rough conditions to consolidate their territory. He used the Tarikh-i-Assam by Shehabuddin Talesh and Baharistan-i-Ghaybi Vol I & II by Mirza Nathan as his primary sources.
The paper elaborated on the different strategies the Mughals used to cross the numerous rivers in the area. It looked into supply lines and how communication was maintained between different regions. It analysed the importance of building forts for controlling territory, and for offensive and defensive purposes. The paper also touched upon the various ways in which the environment wreaked havoc on the Mughals’ plans through the difficult terrain, heavy rain and floods. The Mughals were also limited by the abilities of their animals to navigate the area.
The paper concluded that the Mughal conquest in the Brahmaputra Valley was limited by the topography of the region. As a result, the Mughals were not able to achieve complete centralized control over this region.
The moderator thanked the panelists for their interesting papers and proceeded to the discussion session. Firstly, he asked Ms. Harris about the potential of exploring the concept of subaltern animism as a way of acknowledging animal spaces in the city. Ms. Harris answered that she had recently read a paper on the topic, which had suggested that the concept of subaltern and how it configured non-humans, was extremely relevant in the arrangement of urban spaces.
Prof. Santhosh then asked Ms. Suravee Nayak if she had any policy recommendations to tackle the plight of the marginalised communities. Ms. Suravee’s suggestion was to implement good systems of local democracy. She felt that local democratic institutions were an excellent way to involve local communities in the discourse and give them a voice.
The moderator then questioned Mr. Jonmani Das to elaborate upon how communication links were set up during the Mughal conquest. Mr. Jonmani emphasised the precariousness of the communication lines, pointing out that they were prone to breakdowns during monsoons. He also noted that communication sent through messengers took an incredibly long time, sometimes even upto a year, which made it easy for information to be manipulated.
Prof. Santhosh then opened up the floor to audience questions. An attendee named Atriya put forth questions to each panelist.
Mr. Atriya asked Ms. Susan about the issues with using the term “anthropocene”. He also raised the issue of the lack of agency of city dogs, citing the case of “mad dogs” being taken away. Ms. Susan did not agree with Mr. Atriya’s view on the term “anthropocene” and cited Dipesh Chakrabarthy’s essay The Four Theses on Climate History. While she acknowledged the problematic aspects of the term, she felt that it was still a useful tool to think about non-human life. On the issue of “mad dogs”, Ms. Harris felt that it was a good avenue for further exploration.
He asked Ms. Suravee and Mr. Mijo about their categorical understanding of land through the studies they conducted. Ms. Suravee answered the question in the context of Odisha. Citing Nikita Sud’s work on land, she said that land holds multifaceted meanings in the lives of people and underlies the social lives of the people that inhabit it. Mr. Mijo took up the issue of understanding land in Kerala. He emphasised the fact that land reforms often ended up reproducing existing inequalities.
Mr. Atriya also asked Mr. Jonmani if a comparative history of the Mughals in Bengal and Assam could be done. Mr. Jonmani said that it was possible, but that it would be more relavant to do a comparative history of the Mughals and Ahoms. However, he also noted the lack of source materials to conduct such research.
Prof. Santhosh thanked the panelists for their interesting presentations and concluded the session.
Design by Conference Team
Article 19 