Imagine I want to start an institute for ecology. I begin the idea as institute for understanding pastoral and nomadic change or an attempt to look at the future of tribes. The standard notions of development, homogeneity, hierarchy would feel (a) that tribals should not have an idea of a tribal institute, and (b) to call it a national tribal or nomadic institute is an oxymoron.

If I am tribal, I am marginal; if I am nomadic, I am already decentred. Why do I need the capital’s certification to be national? The vision of national, regional, state level institutes is a hierarchised one. It makes no sense to a tribal in Jharkhand to create a national centre in Delhi. It is a form of detribalisation. Anyway, most of the new national institutes are mere fiefdoms for IAS officers out on a limb or planning a leisurely retirement.

Push the issue deeper. Our notions of security are Delhi-centric. We respond to any model of tribal rights as secession. If marginal tribals and peasants protest they are all dubbed as Naxal. What if I as a tribal were to say that forests belong to me? What if tribal areas were handed to local tribal councils? What if we were to say no forest land can be appropriated without a local referendum? Why can’t national interests be decided locally? Why should the idea of locality be so parochial? In fact, nationalism today requires the cosmopolitanism of localities thinking in terms of size and scale.

... contd.