Land, Identity & Conflict

The economical, social, cultural and political significance of land is undeniable. It is central to the livelihoods of most people; it provides social legitimacy and is an identity marker; and it provides the basis for continuity of history and culture. For indigenous peoples, it forms the single most critical aspect of their sense of self, and consequently their worldview.

Inevitably, issues around land are also the easiest to mobilise communities. Unsurprisingly, competition over land has been manipulated to serve underlying, often not readily visible, vested interests. Therefore, most violent conflicts in recent history have involved some form of tension over this one scarce resource. It is a fixed resource which different actors, be it the State, corporations, communities or individuals compete over for different, sometimes conflicting, purposes. Exploitation of land for its natural resources including extraction of oil, gas, minerals, and timber etc has often been closely associated with triggering, sustaining and perpetuating violent conflicts in different parts of the world.

However, while competition over land remains a common element in most violent conflicts, studies have also shown that it is never the single cause. Other factors such as systematic and structural discrimination, inequality, marginalisation and exclusion precede such violence; in fact, these are often the root causes and violent conflicts over land the manifestation.

This is frequently true for societies transitioning from land use systems supporting subsistence agriculture toward a market oriented one. Where the transition fails to result in equitable distribution of, and opportunities to access benefits, the potential for violent conflict drastically rise. Often, affected individuals and communities feel existing institutions and policies are discriminatory to their interests making them more vulnerable to manoeuvrings by external forces and interests.

Very often such land-based conflicts, which are tangible, evolve into more abstract conflicts involving identity because the parties to the conflict come to identify themselves with their positions. Because identity based conflicts are based on abstract concepts of self, they are ambiguous and more difficult to resolve. Identity markers such as ethnicity, community, religion etc become convenient mobilising platforms. In such a situation, a conflict involving specific individuals can morph into wider confrontations. It transforms an already potentially tense situation into the real commission of violence.

Much of the conflicts in Northeast India have followed this course and exhibited these characteristics. The Karbi –Rengma conflict is a current example. Ironically, those who incite such violence are least affected. It is the common people—subsistence farmers, daily wage labourers, farmers—who bear the brunt of such violence.

Because of the complex and multi-layered nature of conflicts involving land and identity, solutions to address them have to first address underlying issues of discrimination, inequality, marginalisation and exclusion. It is also equally important to give due space to customary practices of indigenous communities in addressing such conflicts.  Experience in India, as well as abroad, has shown that policies and laws on land which does not factor in these issues have resulted in further disenfranchisement. Further, because of the already marginalised situation in which those affected by land conflicts find themselves, reformative policies and laws need to ensure that they are not subverted to serve the interests of the elites.

Competition over land will increase with population growth, exacerbated by climate change, environmental degradation and capitalistic considerations. How they are addressed will require policy makers, and more importantly the citizenry, to transcend identity politics and address the underlying issues of inequality, marginalisation, discrimination and exclusion.