Uneven Development – Historical perspective and evidence
Agriculture Development Chronology:-
- Mehrgarh in the Kachhi plain (now in Pakistan) experienced early agricultural activities before 6,000 B.C
- Indus region experienced it in the 4000-3000 B.C
- Gangetic valley saw the advent of agriculture at Koldihwa (U.P) in 5000 B.C., at Chirand (Bihar) in the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C
- Atranjikhera (in the Doab) in the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C
In the Ganga valley, however, the beginning of full-fledged, settled agricultural activity, farming villages and the other associated traits like the emergence of towns, trade and the state system go back to the middle of the first millennium B.C.
River basins of the Ganga, Godavari, Krishna and Kaveri agricultural communities flourished and came forward the civilizational process. At the same time, however, large pockets in areas such as Assam, Bengal, Orissa, Gujarat and Central India, being relatively isolated or isolated regions, remained for a long time in a stage of primitive economy, largely untouched by any such development. Finally, when the transition to the historical period took place in some of the relatively isolated regions there was not only a time gap but also perceptible differences in the nature and formation of the regions.
Uneven Patterns of the emergence of Historical Regions- Geography Shaping the cultures :-
- The uneven development of regions can be demonstrated through interesting historical situations.For example in the second half of the third millennium B.C. one encounters mesolithic cultures in Gujarat and at the same time neolithic cattle-keepers were traversing the landscape of the Deccan. What is striking is that the mature, advanced Harappan civilization coexisted with these cultures in other regions.
- Consequently there is evidence for interaction between cultures and regions at different levels of growth. Such tendencies have persisted all through Indian history. To put it differently, while the Indus and Saraswati basins were colonized in the third millennium B.C., the first large scale agricultural communities of the Deccan,Andhra, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Gujarat belong essentially to the Iron Age, and can be placed in the second half of the first millennium B.C.
Ceramic Evidence /Pottery , helping classify cultures :-
- Ochre-Coloured Pottery Ware (OCP) -earlier then 1000 B.C
- Black and Red Ware (BRW) – 1000 -800 B.C.
- Painted Grey Ware (PGW) – between 800-400 B.C.
- Northern Black Polished (NBP) Ware – between 500-100 B.C
OCP,BRW & PGW basically encountered in the Indo-Gangetic divide and the upper Ganga valley, including the Doab .
NBP has its centre of origin in the middle Gangetic plain and spread out into Central India and the Deccan during the Mauryan period.
The The distribution of pottery types gives us some idea of the territorial limits of a culture and the stages of its expansion. The Indo-Gangetic divide and upper Ganga basin experienced, the emergence of a new cultural pattern first in the second half of the second millennium B.C. and then there was a gradual eastward spread which, during the Mauryan period, seems to have gone beyond the Gangetic heart land.
Literary Evidence of Cultural pattern:-
- The geographical focus of the Rig Vedic period was the Saptasindhu (land of the Indus and its tributaries) and Indo-Gangetic divide. In the Later Vedic period the Doab became the epicentre and in the Age of the Buddha the middle Gangetic valley (Kosala and Magadha) came into prominence.
- The term Rastra in the sense of territory came into use in the Later Vedic period and we see the rise of small monarchies and states in areas suchas Kuru and Panchala.
- In the Age of the Buddha (6th century B.C.) the sixteen Mahajanapadas (large territorial kingdoms) emerged
- With the exception of Gandhara in the North-West, Avanti in Malwa and Asmaka in the Deccan the Mahajanaopadas were mostly concentrated in the upper and middle Gangetic valley.
- Regions such as Kalinga (ancient coastal Orissa), Andhra, Vanga (ancient Bengal), Rajasthan and Gujarat find no mention in literature focusing on that period, suggesting thereby that they were pt to emerge on the historical stage .
- Kingdoms to the south of the Vindhyas like Kalinga were mentioned for the first time by Panini in the 5th (century B.C.)
The emergence and formation of the various regions, therefore, was a long drawn out process. “Hence it is not surprising that this difference in the technology and socio-economic development of the various regions should have been at the root of the later cultural divergences.
Q:-Why we have good deal of evidence of Chalcolithic culture but have poor evidence of Neolithic culture.Also mention where and how these cultures flourish ? Compare and contrast their similarities and dissimilarities.
Answers:-
Chalcolithic culture have good deal of evidence becuase:-
- The culture developed around a sedentary agricultural community.
- Confinement people to a particular region leaves longer and greater trace of their activities.
- Pockets of chalcolithic cultures makes it easier to decipher than deciphering ever moving pastoralists.
- Sedentary life style gave enough leisure for the community to engage in creative activities , thus emergence of Painter pottery , common and peculiar (unidirectional) burial ground etc.
- They used both stone and copper tools , thus making their mark profound.
- Sites:- Daimabad(Maharashtra) (situated on the left bank of the Pravara River )
Different Chalcolithic culture:-
-
Ahara Culture: The sites of Ahar Culture were Aahar (Rajasthan), balathal, Gilund etc. The distinctive feature is black and red ware.
-
Kayatha Culture: Located in Chambal and its tributaries, the sturdy red slipped ware with chocolate designs is main feature.
-
Malwa Culture: Narmada & its tributaries in Gujarat. One of the largest Chalcolithic settlements
- Prabhas & Rangpur Culture: Both of them are derived from the Harappa culture. The polished red ware is the hall mark of this culture
-
Svalda Culture: The well-known sites are in Dhulia district of Maharashtra.
Neolithic Culture have poor evidence because :-
- Neolithic phase was a transition phase from Paleolithic hunting-gathering to neolithic Food-producing.Most remained Pastoralist while few became agriculturalist.Being a transition phase it had mixture of both.
- They moved from place to place in search of pasture land.
- They only used stone as tools , so leaving no distinctive mark.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.