Zehmisch discusses the issue of state and non-state relations in Chapter 11 in relation to the idea of indigeneity, by arguing that discourses, definitions, and practices relating to indigeneity have shifted across time, spaces, and contexts. He understands the term as contingent upon the relationship between the state and non-state actors. Zehmisch captures indigeneity as a dialectical process between essentialist classifications of indigenous groups by authorities, and creative appropriations of such categories by indigenous people themselves. His ethnographic example, the Andaman Islands, serves to demonstrate the trajectory of the notion of indigeneity. Here, popular definitions, representations, and discourses of the British Empire, the Indian nation-state, and the global sphere intersect. The shifting notions are scrutinized by looking at state policies and indigenous–settler dynamics. He highlights how specific spatial arrangements and contact scenarios were interpreted, explained, and described through references to indigeneity. In the Andamans, colonial notions of “savagery” were indicative of indigenous warfare and co-optation at the frontier; they justified the taming and civilizing of “primitive” islanders and their forests through the settling of convicts and “criminal tribes” from the Indian subcontinent. The transformation of ecological “wilderness” into ordered settler colony spaces was executed by “aboriginal” forest laborers: adivasi migrants from Chota Nagpur, the Ranchis, and the Karen, a Burmese “hill tribe.” After independence, anthropologically informed “tribal” governance led to protection acts, reserve zones, and welfare policies. Parallel to that, forestry, infrastructure development, and migrations degraded indigenous resources and led to violence. More recently, transnational, national, and local civil society actors have appropriated the notion of indigeneity. Conservationists and indigenous activists have promoted their own “ecologically noble savage” agenda when involved in conflicts with the government about the isolation of indigenous peoples; in contrast, local politicians advocate the “mainstreaming” of backward “junglees.” Beyond that, Ranchi elites are fighting for official recognition of their indigenous status, while the majority of adivasi peoples are threatened by eviction due to environmental governance. Such conflicting and fluid characteristics appear to be essential elements of indigenous futures.
Indigenous Knowledge and Its Futures
The idea of indigeneity is quite often discussed within the paradigm of indigenous knowledge, as indigenous peoples have for generations been effectively practicing a particular type of knowledge system that is now recognized as eco-friendlier, more sustainable, and more productive than the modern Westernized developmentalist paradigm (see Sillitoe 1998). Therefore, a deeper understanding of the significance of indigenous knowledge is important to comprehend indigeneity on the move. As part of this debate, the ideas and roles of indigenous medicines have appeared as substitutes for biomedicine because of their effective, lasting, and significant capacity for healing diseases. Therefore, the futures of indigeneity demand a serious discussion on the futures of indigenous medicine, which William Sax addresses with empirically based information and analysis in the postscriptum. It has been argued that although biomedicine (also called “modern medicine,” “cosmopolitan medicine,” or “allopathy”) began as a form of indigenous or local knowledge in Europe, it then transcended its origins and became universal or “cosmopolitan.” It is therefore often regarded as a timeless and culture-free form of universal (as opposed to indigenous) knowledge that can be transplanted from place to place without undergoing fundamental change, much like chemistry, physics, or mathematics. Sax argues that, on the contrary, although there may be some heuristic value in describing it as an abstract system divorced from its context, knowledge is in fact always “done”: acquired, owned, disputed, implemented, or, as the positivists would have it, “discovered.” Knowledge has no ontological status outside the human practices that produce and reproduce it, and such practices are always historical and contextual. Thus, argues Sax, all medicine, including modern cosmopolitan medicine, is “indigenous” at the point of application. Although it is true that in our times, biomedicine is epistemologically, institutionally, and politically dominant, this has to do less with universal and context-free truths than with the circumstances of its dissemination. When we compare what are called “indigenous medicines” (e.g., tribal medicines, traditional healing) with modern biomedicine, we are not comparing a context-bound with a context-free system, because there are no forms of knowledge that are free of context. Rather, we are dealing with what Bruno Latour would call “networks” of different sizes. Sax discusses and compares several of these networks, focusing on various forms of “traditional” and “religious” healing from Asia, in an attempt to show that their growth in recent decades has much to do with their context dependency.
Conclusion
The book brings together the findings of empirically grounded research from different parts of the world, particularly in the “Global South.” Based on various transdisciplinary contexts—anthropology, sociology, political science, psychology, geography, and history—it critically engages with debates on indigeneity and its historical and ideological trajectory, in order to determine its theoretical and political destination. The scholars who have contributed to this book examine the current state of indigeneity as an active force, the potential space of identity in a deterritorialized world, and highlight the scalar and temporal dimensions of indigeneity’s sources, contents, and connectedness with related concepts and ideas. When taken together, the book explores the ways in which indigeneity becomes relevant with regard to knowledge, representation, and individually and collectively negotiated “ways of being.” With a focus on the politics of identity and belonging, it attempts to offer new frames through which one may understand the relationships of such politics with many contemporary nation-states, and seeks to provide a critical overview of current research on indigeneity. It also identifies the issues that must be addressed in future research and discussions, in order to investigate indigeneity and its role within changing political and economic environments with greater refinement. For this purpose, the contributors to this book reflect upon their research to engage critically in debates on indigeneity, and thus provide solid theoretical and empirical examinations into indigeneity in the globalized world. Much of this revolves around the observation that the recurrent indigenous activism occurring around the world could lend an honorable dignity to struggles to establish rights. This diverse collection attempts to help readers to acquire comprehensive knowledge about contemporary research that has shaped scholarship on indigeneity and indigenous mobility, and to show promising directions for future research.
Nasir Uddin (PhD, Kyoto) is a cultural anthropologist based in Bangladesh, and Professor of Anthropology at Chittagong University. He studied and carried out research at the University of Dhaka, the University of Chittagong, Kyoto University, the University of Hull, Delhi School of Economics, Ruhr-University Bochum, VU University Amsterdam, Heidelberg University, and the London School of Economics (LSE). His research interests include indigeneity and identity politics; dialectics between colonialism and postcolonialism; refugee, statelessness, and citizenship; notions of power and the state in everyday life; the Chittagong Hill Tracts; and South Asia. His latest book is Life in Peace and Conflict: Indigeneity and State in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Orient BlackSwan, 2017).
Eva Gerharz (Dr.phil., Bielefeld) is Professor of Sociology with a special focus on globalization at Fulda University of Applied Sciences, Germany.She previously held the position of Junior Professor for Sociology of Development and Internationalization at Ruhr-University Bochum, and Interim Professor of Development Sociology at Bayreuth University from 2017 to 2018. Until 2010, she was a researcher in the Department of Social Anthropology, Faculty of Sociology at Bielefeld University, Germany, and also Associate Scientist at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu. With a major focus on South Asia (Bangladesh and Sri Lanka), her research deals with indigeneity, ethnicity and conflict, development and reconstruction, political activism, and transnationalism. Eva has published in several academic journals, including Mobilities, Conflict and Society, Asian Ethnicity, and Indigenous Policy Journal. As well as her monograph, The Politics of Reconstruction and Development in Sri Lanka (Routledge, 2014), she has co-edited Governance, Development and Conflict in South