Mecanizado de partes y piezas metálicas

As analysed in the earlier subsection, while the government solution of building spurs and studs at Baundi is a part of the utilitarian and anthropocentric ethic and logic to save the historical place called Baundi from riverine erosion, the local and subaltern interpretation of erosion as a disaster sees the solution of controlling nature as unsustainable. Nature (the River Ghagra) demands ethical actions from us. Further, nature follows its own ethics of behaviour which is independent of assumed human judgement and ethics. This formulation

173 of nature and the river, suggests that the risk reduction strategies such as spurs and studs, cannot only be judged on the basis of anthropocentric goals or interests. Nature‟s interest and also its will should be taken into account. Also, nature‟s will is considered unknowable for a human being as the following statements about the will of Ghagra suggest:

“If she wishes, she can make you a raja [king, and if she wishes she can make you a fakir [mendicant]. If she does kataan [erosion] your way, you become a fakir, but if she puts clay soil on your land, then you have fertile lands (Ambar, male, aged 96 November 2008)

“She goes as per her will and wish. Till the time her man [mind/wish] changes, she will stay here. When she leaves a place, she leaves behind a small soti [a tiny river or drainage]. When she decides or wills to leave, she enters this soti; and covers long distances without much time and leave behind pataan [deposition]. She goes as further as she wants. And when she feels like returning she does so” (Vishal, male, aged 75, December 2008)

Like earlier representations, this representation of the River Ghagra arises from a world view which suggests that nature per se cannot be controlled or ruled through the actions of human beings. Nor is nature static; it has its own rhythm and life, and follows its own ethics. Further, it is a complex live entity in its own way whose actions are fundamentally indeterminate to human beings. It is humans who may have to adjust to the natural phenomenon: in this case the river and her meandering ways. Moreover, in this view of the nature-human interaction, villagers and subaltern groups recognise themselves as a part of social nature (as opposed to nature/culture dualism), as neither nature nor social is given an ontological primacy in the construction of a disaster but rather both are understood in and through their interactions.

Other ways in which erosion was explained to me were:

“The way we stay in our house, Gangaji [another local name for Ghagra] too is staying in her house. The way we do khetipati [agricultural work], she too is doing the same through kataan and pataan in her own house” (Savitri, female, from luniya, an intermediate caste, aged 45, November 2008).

“Where will Gangaji go? She stays within the radius of 12 km doing kataan and pataan within this space. People come and go but Gangaji‟s life has been spent in this approximately 12 km space” (Rubar, Brahman, male aged 65, August 2008) This explanation of erosion, not only suggests that nature (the River Ghagra) follows her own nature or will, when she does erosion and deposition, but also that this is where her rightful abode is, and all that she is doing is her „work‟ in her rightful abode. In this thinking, is the people‟s recognition that the river‟s belongingness to her environment is

174 rightful, as also is the impact of her actions on their lives. As Lalu, a thakur male aged 50, who has lost all his lands in erosion says, “The destiny of this village changes and is made or unmade with the river. One day it will be fine again” (Lalu, December 2008). Thus the interaction between river and people (nature-people) is recognised as an ongoing journey whose outcome is unknown. The right of the nature (River Ghagra) to exist and to follow her nature and work, and the rights of the people who live in her vicinity, find their balance through a continuous interaction: between humans and humans, an effect of political ecology, and humans and nature, an effect of an indeterminate ethic.

To summarise this section, the analysis shows that the erosion and the solutions to prevent it – such as technological interventions by the state – are assessed through discourses of multiple normative standards: on the one hand as a result of the intervention of the state motivated through utilitarian normative outcomes; on the other, as a normative critique of the exploitative and patriarchal social relationships in the area, or as an outcome of the interaction between nature and humans, that is an indeterminate normative ethic. Thus the production of social nature and of disaster risk reduction strategies emerge as components of a discursive process where different voices in the researched village contest governmental strategies as the only solution by proposing an alternative ethic towards human-nature and human-human relations. The following of this alternative ethic calls for ethical social relations as well as ethical ways of relating to nature. Thus in this alternative local and subaltern view, neither a wholly anthropocentric nor an ecocentric ethic has an ontological primacy. The question therefore is: „What place should be given to this proposed alternative ethic in any search for disaster risk reduction strategies?‟ And if so, „To what extent does this local and subaltern call for an alternative ethic resonate with the theoretical or philosophical claims made by the social theories engaging with these questions?‟.

6.4 Social theory and the anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric views of disasters: