The Impact of ‘Civilization’ on Endemic Communities.

The Impact of ‘Civilization’ on Endemic Communities.

In this piece, Suresh discusses the impact of civilization on endemic communities and their right to live in isolation. Suresh tells us how these indigenous people have had their land, rights and identities stripped by encroaching industrial civilization.


The Impact of Civilization on Endemic Communities

By Suresh Balraj

In a world characterised by information, there are issues that have been made so invisible that the great majority of people do not even know that they exist.  This is the case of the ethnic communities living in voluntary isolation.  Most are not even aware that some of these people have not yet been contacted by the predominating society and in other cases, have resisted integrating it in spite or as a result of having been contacted.

To this ignorance is added a second one: that the very existence of these people is seriously threatened by the destructive advance of ‘development’.  Roads penetrating into the forests to extract timber, oil, minerals or to promote land settlement for agriculture and cattle ranching, can be labelled ‘inroads of death’ for these people.  They bring unknown diseases their bodies are incapable of coping with, destroy the forests that provide for their livelihoods, pollute waters, where they drink, bathe and fish. There are encounters with those who intend to take over their territory, the death of their millennia-old cultural heritage.

To understand the problem we need to divest ourselves of our ‘truths’ and try to put ourselves in their place.

All of us live in territories with precise limits.  They do too.  All of us are jealous custodians of our frontiers when faced with potential or real external aggression.  They are too.  All of us have our feelings of nationality, with a specific language, culture and wisdom.  They have too.

What would we do if a group of armed foreigners entered our territory without our permission?  The same as they do; we would resist in every possible way, including armed resistance.  However, while we may be considered to be heroic patriots’, they are classified as savages.  Why is this? Simple, because we are the ones to legitimize resistance (violence).

It is important to emphasize that these people were never asked if they wanted to be Indian, Asian, African, American or European.  Each government colonial or national simply drew up a map of straight lines and determined that all the territories included within its frontiers belong’ to the corresponding country or colony irrespective of these people having been there much before the very idea of even the concept of state.  They have been nationalised.

Again this begs the question:  what would we do if we had to face a similar situation? Would we accept the imposed change of nationality or would we resist it ?

Surely, we would do everything possible to continue being what we are and what we want to be. The difference, of course, is that these people are in no position to, ultimately, resist the devastating advance of modernisation (industrialisation). For this reason, all of us who believe in justice and dignity, have an obligation to provide them with the support they need although they do not ask for it to defend their liberty and rights, and, finally, prevent the silent or invisible genocide that they are being subject to.

We should not be surprised that there are people who do not want to either assimilate or integrate into the kind of life that we live; a system that pauperises millions, destroys whole ecosystems land, water, forests, fisheries, space and atmosphere.  These people are neither poor nor ignorant.  They are most certainly different and have demonstrated the most uncommon wisdom, whose history is a mystery even today.

The ‘First Frontier The Case of Amazonia.

When the first conquistadores’ travelled down the combined drainage basin of the rivers Amazon and Orinoco, in the 16th century, they found populous settlements, hierarchical chiefdoms and complex agricultural systems all along the two rivers.  The Indians’, they reported, raised turtles in ponds/freshwater lagoons, had vast stores of dried fish, made sophisticated glazed pottery, and had huge jars, each one capable of holding a hundred gallons.  They also noted that these people had dug-out canoes and traded up and down the Andes.  Behind the large settlements, they noted many roads leading to the hinterland.  These stories were later discounted as the puff of promoters trying to magnify the importance of their discoveries, as the banks of the rivers have been almost devoid of people since the 18th century.  All through the 20th century, the archetypal Amazonians were ‘hidden tribes, hunter-gatherers and jhum cultivators, who lived mostly upstream, at the headwaters, away from even the settlers within.  

With the benefit of hindsight and new insights from history, social anthropology and archaeology, we can now see that these two opposing perceptions of Amazonia are strangely and tragically related.  Archaeology now teaches us that lowland Amazonia, even in areas of poor soil and brackish water like the upper Xingu, was indeed once quite densely populated.  Regional trade and dynamic synergies among and between the Amazonians had led to the sub-continent being thickly populated by widely differentiated, but inter-related groups or communities, who specialised in local skills to both work and use their unique environs in diverse and subtle ways.

The onslaught of modern/western societies brought about much of this complexity/diversity to an end.  Warfare, conquest, religious missions, and the scourge of old world diseases reduced whole populations to less than a tenth of the pre-Columbian levels.  Slave raids, by European invaders traded the ‘red gold of enslaved ‘Indians for the goods of western industries, stripped the lower rivers/reaches bare of any remnant groups.  Raiding, enslaving and competition for trading opportunities with the whites created turmoil in the headwaters.  The myth of the empty Amazon became a reality as the survivors moved inland and upstream to avoid these depredations.

In the late 19th century, overseas markets and advances in technology created new possibilities of exploitation/extraction.  In particular, the discovery of the process of vulcanisation, led to a global trade in non-timber forest produce, such as, rubber and other plantations almost exclusively for military-industrial-commercial use.  The onerous task of bleeding the climax vegetation and the land rich in deposits, linked to global trade and finance, yielded fortunes for entrepreneurs prepared to penetrate the headwaters and enslave local communities to serve the global marketplace.

Tens of thousands of indigenous people perished as a result of forced contact, labour and disease.

This forced them to flee even deeper into the jungles, to break contact completely with a changing world that brought them death and destruction of life and ‘property.

Of course, not all the indigenous people at the headwaters are environmental/ecological refugees escaping the brutalities of contact. However, the impact of the outside world on even the remotest headwaters is often underestimated.  For many, not only in Amazonia, the search for isolation has been an informed choice the logical response of a people who have realised that contact with the outside world almost certainly brings only ruin, not benefits.  

This centurys industrialised societies are being further drawn into the last reaches of the Amazon, where these people now live in voluntary isolation, for timber, minerals, oil and natural gas.  If we deplore the consequent horrors of the earlier invasions, can we now really say that the advanced industrial society is more civilised?  Can we respect the choice (rights) of other communities to avoid contact and leave them alone in their homeland, undisturbed?

The ‘Last’ Frontier The Case of the Negrito in the Andamans.

Outsiders are invading the reserve of the isolated Jarawas (Sentinelese, Onges and others) in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands of India. They are stealing the game on which they depend for their life and livelihood.  Women and children, in particular, seem to face the brunt of this invasion.  Despite a Supreme Court order to the local administration to finally close, for example, the highway which runs through the reserve,  it remains open, bringing death, disease and dependency.

The Jarawa are one of the four Negrito communities who are believed to have travelled to the Andamans from Africa some 60,000 years ago.  Two of the local communities, the Onge and Andamanese, were decimated following the colonisation of their islands first by the British and later by India.  The present population of the Andamanese is a ridiculous 40.  Both the communities are now dependent on government handouts.  The Jarawas resisted contact with the settlers from mainland India until 1998.  The fourth, the Sentinelese, live on their own island and continue to shun all contact.

The Jarawas are hunter-gatherers and even their population size is far below the critical mass (270).  They use bows and arrows to hunt small game.  Today, hundreds and thousands of Indian and Burmese settlers and poachers are hunting along the coast, depriving the Jarawas of their vital game.   The issue has become so acute that in many areas the once abundant game has almost become extinct.  The same is true vis-à-vis the other communities as well.

The main highway which runs through the Jarawa reserve, known as the Andaman Trunk Road, has thrown open their homeland for exploitation and extraction.  As a result, foreign or alien goods and exotics are being introduced into the region.  Although the local administration is trying to restrict contact, which may be a step in the right direction, it is by no means sufficient to secure the future of the communities at stake.  All the same, opinion is still divided within the establishment to both assimilate and integrate the communities into the mainstream.  

The Consequence of Imposed or Involuntary Contact The Case of the Malapandaram in the Southern Western Ghats of Kerala.

The Malapandaram are a nomadic community numbering about 2000 people who live in the high ranges of the Southern Western Ghats along the south-west coast of the state of Kerala in South India.  Early writers described them as the primitive tribes of the jungle and saw them as socially isolated in a pristine environment.  But, the Malapandarams have a history of contact with the caste Hindus settled in the plains and have been a part of a wider mercantile economy.  They are basically collectors of minor forest produce, such as, spices, honey and medicinal plants.  They, therefore, combine subsistence food gathering small game and birds with the collection of other usufructs.  

The majority of Malapandarams spend most of their life living in forest encampments occupied by one to four families.  These encampments consist of two to four leaf shelters, made of mud (clay) and thatch.  These settlements’ are obviously temporary as they reside in a particular locality only for about a week before moving elsewhere.

The Malapandarams see themselves and are described by outsiders as ‘Kattumanushyar forest people. They closely identify themselves with their living space, which is not only a source of livelihood, but also an environment where they can sustain a degree of cultural autonomy and social independence (inter-dependence).  Hence, they tend to live and constantly move around the margins of the forest ecosystem. This enables them to engage in a barter systemwhile avoiding control, harassment/exploitation and even violence as a result of conflicting interests.  In short, the verdant canopy is their only refuge.

With the establishment of colonial rule the British (imperial) Raj and the artificial creation/formation of the state of Travancore, the Southern Western Ghats became a property for the very first time. In the annuls of their history, owned and abused with impunity by the state through its extensive network of forest bureaucracy.  Since 1865, a number of Acts (laws) were enacted and enforced periodically in order to manage the forests, as well as, its residents (biotic and abiotic), almost exclusively for politico-economic reasons (profit).  A major outcome: the sedantarisation of the nomadic communities as fixed or permanent settlements.   They were, thus, denied any rights, customary and/orotherwise, to life and livelihood based on their renewable natural resource base.  The ultimate manifestation of this involuntary transition has resulted in an identity crisis due to the economics of intimidation.  That is, today, they are no more forest dwellers, but rather have been forced to become agriculturists (bonded, landless and marginal agricultural labourers/farmers).  

’Independent’ India has only increasingly, ever more aggressively, moved from feudalism to neo-feudalism, colonialism to neo-colonialism and, now liberalism to neo-liberalism.


Suresh Balraj is an environmental anthropologist and social ecologist based in South India. He has been working in forestry, agriculture, and fisheries for several decades with a focus on community-based renewable management. He is a guardian for Deep Green Resistance.

Featured image: Cave of the Hands in Santa Cruz province, with indigenous artwork dating from 13,000–9,000 years ago, by Mariano, CC BY SA 3.0.

We Need Your Help

Right now, Deep Green Resistance organizers are at work building a political resistance resistance movement to defend the living planet and rebuild just, sustainable human communities.

In Manila, Kathmandu, Auckland, Denver, Paris—all over the world—we are building resistance and working towards revolution. We Need Your Help.

Not all of us can work from the front lines, but we can all contribute. Our radical, uncompromising stance comes at a price. Foundations and corporations won’t fund us because we are too radical. We operate on a shoestring budget (all our funding comes from small, grassroots donations averaging less than $50) and have only one paid staff.

Current funding levels aren’t sustainable for the long-term, even with our level of operations now. We need to expand our fundraising base significantly to build stronger resistance and grow our movement.

Click here to support our work.

How Can We Hold Corporations Accountable?

How Can We Hold Corporations Accountable?

Corporations are driven by a necessity to privatize profits and externalize costs. In this article, Suresh Balraj highlights how the concept of limited liability further reduces the accountability of corporations to the consequences of their actions, and asks “how can we hold corporations accountable?”


The Myth of Limited Liability

By Suresh Balraj

Prof. Nicholas Murray, former president of Columbia University, might have been wrong when he said : “The limited-liability corporation is the greatest invention of modern times”; simply because, there is nothing original about limited liability at all. In fact, it wraps new language around a concept that is as old as ‘civilisation’ itself – that of enriching rulers at the expense of the majority of humans and their non-human communities.

The American anthropologist Stanley Diamond noted : “Civilisation originates in conquest abroad and repression at home”; certainly, he is not the only one to remark that the central goal and function of the State has been, from the very beginning, that of robbing the poor in order to feed the rich.

One of the founding fathers of the American constitution, James Madison, also insisted – in the 18th century – that the main goal of the political system should be to protect the minority (elites) against the majority.

Besides, the Godfather of economics, Adam Smith, wrote : “Civil government … is instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor or of those who have some property against those who have none at all”. But, including John Locke, who stated that the State has no other end other than the preservation of property, were all being rather modest. The reason being, the main function of the State actually goes even further; not only to just protect, but more importantly, to acquire more and more property for the opulent.

In other words, from the very beginning, the one and the only goal/objective has been the privatisation of profits and the externalisation of costs; and, the only question : how best to do this ?

Force is, of course, one way. For which, we need to probably ask the Africans, for example – more than 100 million dead during the slave trade alone; or, for that matter, the ‘American Indians’, who were decimated a dozen times over in the conquest of their homeland. Another very striking example of the times would be the scores of indigenous communities, across the globe, who continue to be both dispossessed and exterminated (as rapidly as those who came before them).

Or even better, would be to ask a present, modern day slave; for example, the e-coolies in ‘bondage’ in sweatshops and bodyshops – couched in technical jargons, such as, silicon valley, technopark, infopark, infocity, blue-chip, six-sigma and fortune 500/1000.
However, at the end of the day, force is expensive or economically unviable, at least in the long run. Therefore, it would be simply great, if you could convince the very victims to participate or co-operate in the process of their victimisation. Thus, in ancient times, those in power invoked the divine right of the feudal lords (kings) – trying to convince not only themselves, but particularly, those from whom they usurped both life and property; as a result, anyone who dares to oppose this divine intervention or Godly incarnation shall be subject to eternal condemnation.

Obviously, this was possible during the pseudo-religious era – the ‘dark’ ages. But, in today’s so called civilised world, this might seem to be pretty extreme. For example, if those in power said that Warren Anderson, the mass murderer of the victims of Union Carbide in Bhopal, India, in 1984 – the worst air pollution disaster in the history of humankind – should not be executed due to a divine mandate, it would then make a mockery of the rule of law.
So the powerful had come up with a different way to keep the victims of their misdemeanours from hurting them in retaliation.

And, for this reason, they somehow seem to have the uncanny knack of getting all of us to buy into the extraordinarily odd notion of limiting their liability (accountability) for the arson, looting and daylight robbery, including poisoning and murder, committed by them, by simply uttering the magical words : limited liability corporation. What is even worse is the fact that they’ve also somehow got us to believe that the very idea (of a limited liability corporation) is not only great, but something like that actually exists in real life. On the other hand, the eternal truth is that, the fictitious human imagination is no more than a black hole, a blind spot and, to say the least, a pipedream.

To this end, limited liability simply means that the owners – shareholders/stakeholders – are not liable, and therefore, cannot be held responsible or accountable, for the actions of their corporations. In other words, the so called investors are liable to lose only the money invested, and are in no way responsible for the genocide, ecocide and other heinous crimes committed by them or their corporations.

Above all, limited liability is not only about profits or amassing wealth (illegally); rather, it is about the institutionalisation and explicit acknowledgement of the fact that it is simply impossible to ‘create wealth’, without externalising the costs, thereby, paying the supreme price resulting in the complete annihilation of even life forms and whole habitats. The issue of energy being a classic example, at the core of the very survival of life on earth.
Limited liability has allowed several generations of corporate owners to socially, economically, culturally/psychologically and legally ignore the poisoning of the earth. Its function is not to guarantee that children are raised in an environment free of pollution, nor to respect the life and autonomy of indigenous communities, nor to protect the vocational and personal integrity of workers, nor to design safe modes of transportation, nor to support the millions of life forms on earth. It never has been and never will be.

Here, what is really important are not labels; because, no matter what language we use, poison is still poison, and death is still death. The modern military-industrial base is causing the greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet. What we are witnessing today is the simultaneity of unprecedented ‘riches’ on the one hand, and unthinkable or unimaginable deprivation and poverty on the other. A brutal form of insatiable hunger, where the more you consume or possess, the more desperate you become. What this means is that, those running the ‘show’ (corporations) just can’t help running amok, till they actually kill the host – although it is equally suicidal for the rich, as well as, the poor to destroy the ‘goose that lays the golden egg’, i.e., the natural world.


Suresh Balrah is an environmental anthropologist and social ecologist based in South India. He has been working in forestry, agriculture, and fisheries for several decades with a focus on community-based renewable management. He is a guardian for Deep Green Resistance.


How Can We Hold Corporations Accountable?

Editors note: As Suresh explains, the structure of law and of corporations makes them legally unassailable. Therefore, there are two primary methods to roll back corporate dominance: change the law, or break the law. Both methods present serious challenges. For more on how we can hold corporations accountable, we recommend you read the book Deep Green Resistance, which explores strategic resistance methods in detail.


Featured image by Gerard Van der luen, CC BY NC ND 2.0.