Governance

Dramatic or mundane, passive or active, confrontations and negotiations, over natural resources, between the colonizer and the colonized manifest repudiation, uprisings, rebellions and even organized violent confrontationist movements. The basis of scientific forestry that allowed the state to commercially exploit the forests, putting curbs on the local use of subsistence, led to the formation of covert and unfair colonial forest management policies which were the reasons for Adivasi retaliation. The discourses on Adivasi resistance and scientific forestry have constituted a major concern for historians, sociologists, political thinkers and critical geographers, particularly those who are keen to delve into the universal urge of the oppressed towards liberation. Departing from the conventional understanding of resistance, I am keen to re think the notions of resistance that can be applied to a much wider range of socio-cultural practices, taking into account the ways in which the subjectivity of the dominated is constrained, modified and conditioned by power relations. Therefore, through a detailed archival analysis of Adivasi insurgencies and colonial power, I conceptualize the entangled nature of power, knowledge and resistance. The rich variety of Adivasi (everyday) modes of resistance and unwillingness to submit to colonial exploitation/modernization contradicts the political conclusions derived from Foucault’s analysis of power. What Adivasi struggles demonstrate is that power, in producing the people that we are, is both productive and repressive

In this article, I discuss my experiences, dilemmas and emotions following my field surveys conducted in the rehabilitated villages of Sardar Sarovar. The Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) is a multi-purpose river valley project that has dislocated thousands of Adivasis and non-Adivasis from their traditional lands. I have used the narrative method to research and gain insights into the lifestyle changes of the Adivasis displaced by the SSP. Accordingly, I reflect critically on the negotiation of ethics and insider– outsider status in international field research and pay close attention to the importance of reflexivity, positionality and power struggles.

no matter how high the wall there is no wall high enough to block off migration (Houtum,2010:973) Back in history, colonial settlers followed 'divide and rule' strategies to carve the world based on resources, ignoring native socio-economic and cultural linkages to their lands, therefore 'b/order/ology' (Houtum,2010) cannot be entirely gleaned ignoring European colonial historiography. Borders constrain or enable human mobility through laws and institutions that are harmoniously cocooned over citizenship and entitlement nexus which gets blurry between natives and immigrants in settler nations where indigenous communities were not immigrants but were disassociated from their lands by European settlers/immigrants. Today the epistemology of borders can be gleaned in different ways as: a line; a frontier; a membrane; a verb; a historical construct; discourse; a biometric-digitized-racialized mechanism; an intricate machinery to expand territory or boundaries that divide the superior-civilized imperialists from the uncivilized barbers. In sum, borders are mobile, immigrant subjectivities carry borders as a part of their identity.

Population geographers continue to contribute to migration scholarship using feminist informed methods. Adding to this literature, this article combines migration and development discourses and addresses the realities and lived experiences of the Adivasi populations whose lives are impacted by development-induced displacement due to the construction of a multipurpose river valley project, the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) on the  armada River in western India. The different sections of this article  discuss the conceptual approach to migration, provide a detailed case study of the Adivasi displacees, and contribute towards understanding the everyday spaces of displaced Adivasis by
taking a narrative approach.

The Tadvi Adivasi narratives succinctly underscore the imprudence and insanity of Indian federal and state governments in sanctioning the construction of large-scale development projects' such as the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP). Dam development is a part of a wider neoliberal project that create capitalist relations and technologies in different forms of economy and modes of livelihood contributing to the process of global primitive accumulation. The expansion of the creation of the global proletariat is facilitated by dismantling customary relations to land, forests, water. The fact that many dams are constructed where marginalized populations exist holding tenuous relations to the environment may not coincide. For capitalism to survive and expand, there not only has to be an increase in capital accumulation sometimes taking the form of technological infrastructure (large dams) but there also has to be 'free labor', a group of people who have no ties to any subsistence base and limited or no alternative to working for wages. An analysis of Tadvi stories and my field observations highlight the limited livelihood opportunities and the socio-political changes Adivasis' are experiencing, in their rehabilitated villages, which has an enormous impact on their everyday lives and future generations. In hindsight, the eminent dislocation and resettlement accentuate the post-colonial Indian state's ideological explanations towards the need for large-scale development, it's unwillingness to assume accountability, it's flimsy commitments to the environment, it's partial and limited interpretations of sustainability, and it's complete lack of responsibility towards excluding millions of populations from their livelihoods.

The existing marketing, strategy and economics literature have little to offer by way of recommendations to promote entrepreneurship in the informal economy, except to advocate that multinationals, local firms, state and public agencies should work together to bring the informal economy into the fold of the formal economy. In contrast, this paper argues that the business sustainability of women entrepreneurs in the informal economy depends upon their engagements or business partnerships with other women (and men) and women- focussed intermediaries. More than formalization, women entrepreneurs need ‘spaces’ for
dialogue with other women (and men) to learn and build business capabilities. Both the State and firms wanting to penetrate the informal economy can create such spaces through partnerships with NGOs and women-focussed organizations. While formalization of entrepreneurial activity is favourable under some circumstances, it can be detrimental under others – necessitating a case by case evaluation rather than a general rule. In order to ensure the business sustainability of women’s ventures in the informal economy, any sort of formalization must occur through a gradual process accompanied by intermediaries. These results are formulated through the compilation and analysis of the existing literature and the study of six detailed case studies of women entrepreneurs from developing countries validated by extensive interviews. The results are then used to propose a closed model of linkages between formal and informal economies which has novel organizational implications for firms competing to establish consumer base s and business partnerships in the Base of Pyramid (BoP) markets of developing countries.

In this manuscript I clarify and react to the problematic nature of corporatization, talylorization and militarization of academia and the reasons radical academics should enforce action research and insurgent pedagogies, with rigor. Throughout the manuscript I have interspersed my challenges and experiences as a radical immigrant student-of-color and junior faculty member serving in various universities in Europe and United States. My confused positionality, changed identity, insider-outsider status, propelled me to collect my experiences for other young scholars who may be in similar confused academic ally. I understand that as radical academicians, we have to uncover new modes of teaching, learning, and solidarity research that can be truly empowering to our students and bring about a 'just' world.

Abstract
In this manuscript I hope to clarify my use of a pedagogy that is sensitive to social and ecological struggles by reflecting on my personal teaching trajectory, ethnographic experiences, and theoretical reservations to feminism, anarchism and anti-/de-colonial struggles, because these can effectively inform students that we are tied to one another in biospheric knots by histories of domination and structural violence in ways that cannot be ignored. Any institutionalized, essentialist, corporate-driven teaching content cannot be challenged without a mutual synthesis of teacher-student knowledge, critical formulations of social and political realities through praxis, action and place-based environmental pedagogy. To me, this has been the first and most vital reason for the development of an anti-authoritarian pedagogy that is sensitive to (indigenous) people-environmental relations. Different sections of the manuscript focus on disciplinary boundaries around geography, anarcha-ecofeminist and de-colonial philosophical trends, my adopted philosophies and methods of human geography instruction. I conclude by emphasizing the ecosocialist orientation to human geographies because the real world is not divided into silos and disciplines, but is connected, complex and untidy. Hence, my intervention in support of the urgent need to bring sustainability, indigeneity, interdisciplinarity and intersectionality into the curriculum of the discipline in which I find myself, i.e., human geography.

Keywords: Pedagogy; Anarcha-Ecofeminsm; Ecology; Feminism, Indigeneity

In this manuscript I confirm that ecofeminism philosophically existed in native women's practices of care, including their non-human world, and did not abruptly take birth as a construct but was identified as one through women's profound veneration for nature and resistance against capitalist domination. Following radical ecofeminists, I directly articulate why women should organize as women in their struggle for eco-social change and how women should use their innate and experiential knowledge to do so. I analyze two Indian case studies: the Warli Revolt of 1945-47, to confirm the prominence and involvement of Adivasi peasant women in the broader class struggle for survival; and an analysis of Girijana Deepika, a nascent Adivasi organization, that stands on mutual-aid, direct-action, political solidarity and generational knowledge to autonomously produce their own food and reclaim their civil commons.

Time and again, environmental activists and scholars have proved with substantial evidence and rationality that large development projects can neither benefit the humanity nor the ecology. Especially, large dams have been disruptive to the land and aquatic ecosystems. They are expensive and wasteful if the making of dams and also the decommissioning of dams are considered. Although dams are carried out under the vintage of 'greater common good' and the popular propaganda that management of water is required for the equitable distribution of the resource to cope with scarcity, and is instrumental for increasing agricultural productivity -then we should also turn our attention to techno-driven large dams as the material paraphernalia of modernity and neoliberal brutal capitalist interventions for wealth accumulation. Dams have always benefited the wealthier classes while disrupted the lives of the immediate victims and those close to nature, and undeniably dis-balanced the ecological equilibrium.

The UK experienced a different pattern: for years, squatting was mainly linked to housing unavailability, but in the last century Social Centers were established (Common Place 2008). We aim to further more detailed discussions based on the analyses of European and North American studies, following the peculiar nature of repressive policies and mechanisms that prevent and control migrations from the most impoverished regions of the world. Secondly, although the book is focused on migrants and squatters, we must be aware of the fact that we are dealing with two heterogeneous groups, convenient for some general discourses but too vague when addressing, in particular, the trends that combine migration and squatting; therefore we explore their meanings in detail in many chapters.

In this chapter, we have set ourselves the task of summarizing the main questions that are covered substantively in this book by thirty authors, some of whom are members of various collectives. This book is both a political intervention and a summary/analysis of political actions and research findings. This book is neither solely on migration nor only on squatting, but on the relation between the two, which ultimately intersects in resistance and destabilization actions against racist regulatory policies. The book is not a detailed analysis of how badly capitalism or the nation states or the local political parties treat migrants or criminalize squatters. Already quite a lot of scholarly and non-academic articles and books have been devoted to the atrocities of the state and the global misery (Bourdieu 1993; Chomsky 1999; Comité invisible 2014), or the specific national and international situations on repression of migrations (Palidda 2013), or the extreme racialization of criminal justice and the rise of the prison-industrial complex directly linked to the expansion of global economy, proto-capitalism, eurocentrism, white supremacy and the bombings of resource-rich countries in the name of democracy and development (Dent and Davis 2001; Davis 2003; Engel Di-Mauro 2012). Although there is a lot of recent literature on the possibilities of building new societies and utopias from different perspectives (Negri and Hardt