are limited to fresh water supply. While
the well being of the entire population of
Great Nicobar is dependent upon the
health of the environment, settlers exer-
cise more direct or indirect influence than
do the tribal populations on policy-making
and administration. Settlers receive state
aid not only in the form of utilities and
education and health facilities, but in form
of price supports, transport subsidies and
rebates. Their dietary resource base is
narrow and external; little of what they
consume is produced locally, so the level
of state subsidies (e.g., for food trans-
port) directly correlates to their standard
of living. The Nicobarese, and to some
extent the Shompen, are becoming
increasingly dependent on state aid in the
form of food distribution. As subsistence-
level producers, with whom outsiders are
in fact prohibited from trading, the
Shompen do not benefit from price sup-
ports.How will tribal people fit into economic
development scenarios for Great Nicobar?
Will their economic participation or non-
participation be a matter of their individ-
ual and collective decisions, or will others
decide for them? Few Indian officials and
policy-makers have advocated economic
development of Primitive Tribal Groups
through direct exposure to national and
world markets. Even proposals for con-
trolled engagement of tribal peoples with
wider markets (e.g.,
through tribal devel-
opment corporations
and cooperative
societies) should in
fact be considered
with great caution.
“Jobs”, even if
designed around
familiar skills and
existing resource
uses, cannot even
approximatelyreplace the traditional livelihoods of
indigenous people.
Jobs are means of eco-
nomic specialisation
and this kind of assimi-
lation of tribal people is
likely to erode tradi-
tional values and insti-
tutions in a manner
detrimental to both cul-
tural identity and envi-
ronmental conserva-
tion. As Michel Pimbert
observes, “The integration of rural com-
munities and local institutions into larger,
more complex, urban-centered and global
systems often stifles whatever capacity
for decision-making the local community
might have had and renders its traditional
institutions obsolete.”^22 New social hierar-
chies result from new economic patterns,
and rapid social and political changes
often lead to adverse environmental
impacts.Agribusiness and pharmaceutical enter-
prises have promoted bio-prospecting as
a means of “protecting” indigenous peo-
ples and the environments they inhabit.
Authorities who mediate between com-
mercial interests and vulnerable environ-
ments and populations sometimes adopt
the arguments of the bio-prospectors by
emphasizing the invaluable potential ben-
efits of biodiversity preservation.^23 As the
saying goes, the rain forest may hold the
cure for cancer. Yet it is precisely such
“objective”, external assessments that
help rationalise exploitation of indigenous
people. Economic valuation is posited as a
precondition of tribal assimilation into
national societies and the wider world.
The logic of this attitude seems to be that
indigenous people can protect themselves
better if they are aware of the “true” (i.e.,
economic) value of the environment and
the skills with which they manage local
resources. But if global pricing and exter-Conservation aas ccultural aand ppolitical ppractice
How wwill ttribal ppeople ffit
into eeconomic ddevelop-
ment sscenarios ffor GGreat
Nicobar? WWill ttheir eeco-
nomic pparticipation oor
non-pparticipation bbe aa
matter oof ttheir iindivid-
ual aand ccollective ddeci-
sions, oor wwill oothers
decide ffor tthem?
If gglobal ppricing aand
external ccriteria oof vvalu-
ation ooverwhelm llocal
use vvalues, tthen iindige-
nous ppeoples wwill hhave
incentive tto eexploit
species tthat aare iin
demand oon tthe wworld
market...