Abstract:
This thesis uses the theoretical lens of hegemony to examine why communities respond differently to diverse forms of land grabbing. To this end, I reinterpret extra-economic oppression using the Gramscian notion of coercion, consensus, and corruption. I underscore that to fully comprehend the extra-economic nature of contemporary forms of land grabbing, one must study pre-capitalist forces of accumulation. In continuation, I present a matrix indicative of allied and adversarial relations shared by diverse dominant/subaltern groups of a social formation: (a) dominant allied set (DAS); (b) subaltern allied set (SAS); (c) dominant adversarial set (DARS); (d) subaltern adversarial set (SARS). I argue that every attempted use of extra-economic oppression by the deputies of dominant groups to further their accumulation interests at the expense of subalterns is a form of ‘hegemonic accumulation.’ Using this conceptual framework, I explain different responses to land-use changes in the eco-sensitive mountainous state of Sikkim in India. Here, secondary and primary data analysis connects historicity with subjectivity and theory with practice.
Though the 333-year-old feudal theocratic Sikkim ceased in 1975, the hegemonic influences of pre-capitalist forces manifest in ‘modern’ times. Sikkim’s transition to a ‘democratic’ Indian state resulted from the legitimisation of selected forms of extra-economic oppression and consequent hegemonic accumulation by the Indian administration. More recently, the global carbon trading platforms encouraged the Chamling regime (1994-2018) to spearhead land accumulation in developable land-scarce Sikkim using permutations and combinations of extra-economic oppression. Although forest ban for biodiversity conservation, 100% organic farming policy, and cash crop promotion aggravated agrarian-food crises, there is general acceptance for these ‘green’ projects. Contrarily, infrastructure development such as the hydroelectricity projects met with more than two-decade-long community dissent. This varying response can be explained through hegemony – if there is alignment in the hegemonic accumulation interests of the global-national-local forces, then changes in access to land face the least resistance. However, if there is a misalignment, especially if the negotiations between the state and local deputies or organic intellectuals fail, the latter may mobilise a counter-hegemonic movement potent enough to challenge the continuity of the ruling government.