Chapter 2

THE STUDY:

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

This study looks at the dialectics of policy implementation and the knowledge that

people living with floods possess. The pre ̶ dominant technical approach in flood

management has resulted in an almost total neglect of people’s perceptions or the

ethno-discourses on floods. This has resultedDuring the later half of my fieldwork,

the DC was transferred to another location. Since, the floods in the later half were

particularly bad, I was unable to meet the new DC. in a knowledge ̶ base which is

lopsided, highly skewed towards structural interventions and macro ̶ level solutions

and hence found wanting in many ways. This chapter elaborates the objectives of the

study, articulates the research questions based on these objectives, reflects upon the

appropriate theoretical approach for foregrounding the objectives and questions and

describes the methodology adopted to carry out the research. Finally, I dwell upon the

role of the researcher as a fieldworker and conclude with the debate on the 'insider' ̶

'outsider' in fieldwork.

Objectives and Research Questions

The dominant technical approach marks the way in which flood control is perceived

in India. The technical experts, who are often far removed the sites of perennial

floods, are geographically and ideologically, in stark contrast with the people who live

with the reality of floods. This mismatch has resulted in unintended consequences

such as top down polices that are resource intensive macro solutions and incur

wasteful expenditure in terms of relief operations. People and communities in flood ̶

prone areas live with the consequences of this top down decision making process. So

people, living with floods are increasingly living with the politics of it.

The Brahmaputra and its many tributaries, both large and small, from the

Himalayan range in the north and the Patkai range in the south drain the Assam

valley. Rivers and floods in these many rivers are thereby such a staid reality that one

rarely thinks of them as anything but obvious. In ̶ fact when I began to review

26

literature for my study, I was struck by the lack of mention of flood records pertaining

to the Brahmaputra valley. Hence, my first objective was to locate floods in the

history of Assam and underscore the socio-economic implications floods have had for

the people there. This meant going beyond the conventional sources of literature such

as reports, historical accounts, and mainstream ecological history of the country. I had

to delve into the oral tradition and written accounts in the vernacular medium. For a

reality of the nature of floods, I had to make meaning from the knowledge available

in folktales, songs, proverbs, phokora jujona (couplets or riddles with a social

message), weather ̶ related one liners. The notes of early British travellers in their bid

to to find the source of the Brahmaputra served as a goldmine of information to

reconstruct the history of the river since the colonial times.

Engagement with literature from conventional sources meant challenging the given

notions and venturing into the unknown or the little known. This also lead me develop

the idea of floods being more than just destructive. As suggested by my mentor, I

found an analogy in Emile Durkheim's work on crime. In his chapter on 'Normal and

Pathological' in the Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Durkheim opines that all

sociological and biological phenomena can assume two different forms. Social

conditions that are the most generally distributed are called 'normal' and the others are

called 'pathological'. Given that Durkheim argues for normal and pathological in

sociological and biological phenomena, is it possible to extend this argument in case

of floods? Floods are undoubtedly a hydrological phenomenon. Every region in the

world has experienced floods. By that definition, floods are ubiquitous. The presence

of myths around floods across civilisations lend more meanings to the way floods

have been understood. Myths and folklores go on to show floods are simultaneously

social, political, cultural and economic phenomena. Given the ubiquitous nature and

the people's meaning making attempts, floods can be understood as 'normal' in

regions which experience perennial floods. This normality would translate into a

routinisation of floods as expected by communities which experience this phenomena

annually. Floods by themselves are normal, not pathological; it is the manifestation of

floods that may assume a pathological form. In cases where floods are abnormal in

the magnitude and duration, they become 'pathological'. This can happen in areas

which do not experience routine floods and/or in perennial flood ̶ prone areas. Such

27

an assumption is in stark contrast to the conventional view of floods as a disaster

which requires technical intervention. This was aline of inquiry which was explored

in my fieldwork. Accordingly, the following three research questions correspond to

the first objective.

i. What are the earliest records of Brahmaputra floods in oral and written

tradition?

ii. What are the common myths and folk knowledge systems related to floods?

iii. Are floods in the area viewed by the people there as 'normal' or 'pathological'?

The oral tradition is mostly folk based. Despite of its fictional overtone, a folk

narrative reflects social reality and social experiences (Gogoi, 2004: 33). But like all

other methods of data collection, the sole use of oral tradition has the danger of

presenting a lopsided picture. According to James Axtell there are three basic

problems with relying on oral tradition to recreate the past. First, one's knowledge of

the past is determined by what people are currently talking about; so one has little

perceptions of the past except in terms of the present. Second, while oral knowledge

is very conservative, it is also subject to 'structural amnesia'; that is those elements

that no longer have any relevance for contemporary society can be forgotten or

transformed. Third, oral knowledge depends on human memory, which is, of course,

fallible (Singh 2004: 45-46). More than reliability and validity, an undue dependence

on the folk can lead to a mystification of the phenomenon in question. The emphasis

on the people's meaning or ethno aspect in the study, made the community the

primary unit of the study. But the government is a very important and powerful entity

in the implementation of flood policies. At times, it has a monopoly over the

decisions made on floods. Bearing this in mind the second objective was to examine

the governmental policies and approaches vis-a-vis floods and people/ community

affected by floods.

As an individual and a social science researcher, engaging with the government

is easier said than done. Accessing to the bureaucracy, which is the executive face of

the government, was a Herculean task. Ironically, paperwork, the hallmark of this

very bureaucracy, speaks volumes if explored. Policies are the single most valuable

28

source of government decision ̶ making.

The study of flood policy takes one back to the time when the British, fresh with

the victory over the Thames floods, began to undertake flood control plans in India.

Even in colonial times however floods in Bihar, Orissa and Bengal took precedence

over floods in Assam. Floods were mentioned in Imperial gazettes but in passing

terms. This relative silence continues from the colonial to present times. But this

silence has to be situated in a context of silence towards the larger geographical entity

connoted by a vague term the 'north east'. The role of the Assam government in such

a scenario is a further line of inquiry. Based on this, the following four questions

correspond to the second objective:

i. What are the mechanisms that the local people adopt to keep flood damages

minimal?

ii. Is there an incident or a series of incidents that people consider a landmark

when floods changed from being normal to pathological?

iii. When was the first systematic flood policy implemented in Assam?

iv. Have the policies evolved over a period keeping in mind specific local

conditions?

The first two objectives focus on the background of the study. They spell out the

context in which the research is located. Hence, barring the data from the oral

traditions, these two objectives are largely addressed using secondary data sources.

Floods are a hydrological phenomenon. As such by themselves, they are not of

much consequence. It is a different matter altogether when people get affected by

floods. It is then that floods become a disaster which has inherent have a social

component built into it. This social component can be explored only when the study

of the people living with floods is undertaken. An empirical study in a flood ̶ prone

area over an entire season provides a picture of living with floods over that period.

Floods in this case are not incidental; they are the focus of the study. Such an

approach enables one to observe people in an entire cycle, from the onset of floods in

a season to when the floods recede, and to the time they come in again. This is

different from studies undertaken during the phase of extreme flooding or

29

immediately after a flood. The focus here is on the life stories and life history of the

people and floods. The story of floods is not only that of victimhood. Victimhood is

only a part of the picture and victimhood is also not homogenous. Given that floods

have a social component, it can also be expected that its impact will vary across

communities. Hence, the third objective was to locate groups who are most

vulnerable to socio-economic gradient of floods. It is a conscious attempt not to view

community members in a flood ̶ prone area as mere hapless victims. Instead, the

purpose is to understand how people live with and make sense of a seasonal

phenomenon by habit, rather than as a matter of compulsion. Such an approach will

have the space to include the much talked about disaster angle of floods. But, more

importantly, it will offer an opportunity to understand people as meaning making

beings and not just passive spectators or victims of a natural disaster. Given the social

dimension of floods and the emphasis on meaning making, this objective was

examined on information that was collected from people who experience floods. The

following four research questions helped me to pursue this objective.

i. Do all the ethnic communities in Dhemaji live in flood prone areas?

ii. Which groups occupy the danger zones and since how long have they lived

there?

iii. Is any specific group more vulnerable to disaster than others? Are these groups

dominant in community matters?

iv. What is the role of local leaders in flood relief operations and other technical

interventions?

The fourth objective was to capture the everyday encounter between the nature,

State and people who are affected by floods on a recurring basis. It addresses

common questions of communities as custodians of nature, the government as

omnipotent and nature as a commodity. Only in an interface of nature, state and

people that the dialectics can be understood. The micro-level and the macro-level

interactions superimposed in the face of nature provide a unique opportunity to

understand the role of each stakeholder. An ethnography of floods offers an

opportunity to capture floods as an everyday reality. An everyday account, replete

30

with details, offers to move beyond the calamity situation, which despite being

critical, is not the only angle to be explored. To this end the following three research

questions fit well with the fourth objective.

i. Do the state and the government mean the same for all groups?

ii. What is the perception of the state: benevolent, caregiver, indifferent or cruel?

iii. What is the role of the state in times of flood?

The objectives and the research questions emanate from the gaps identified in the

literature. These are thus, the ends towards which the entire process of research is

directed. However, research is much more than meeting the ends. Research is

grounded in both the theory and the empirical study; the science and the art. The next

section elaborates the assumptions, theoretical approach and, therefore, the science

part of research.

Research Methodology

Methodology is the core of a research; it guides the way the research progresses.

Broadly, methodology has four components which are interrelated and mutually

complementary. All the four components, are essential for a sound and rigorous

research.

The ontological assumption

The ontological assumption of the study is that people who experience floods and

reside in flood ̶ prone areas since generations have lived with floods much before the

modern state machinery came into existence. People living in the floodplains are most

aware of the benefits accruing from periodic inundations, as also its hazards.

Indigenous knowledge and adaptive traditional solutions have always sought to

rationalise floods both as nature’s gift and fury ̶ using their regenerative power and

protecting themselves from their ravaging nature (Bandyopadhyay and Gyawali

1994). Indigenous settlement pattern and architecture in the floodplains in north-

eastern India reveal unique modes of adaptation. People living in flood prone areas

make use of the flood waters in the best possible way while ensuring the least damage

31

(Mishra 2001). They have views and ideas which need to be taken into consideration

since they are at the receiving end of policies.

In recent years, there has been a trend away from a strong reliance on flood

defence towards a more integrated approach to flood hazard. This approach seeks to

blend structural and non-structural methods within a socio-economic context that

recognises complete protection from flooding as impossible and calls for risk

acceptance. While this has happened in the more developed countries such as the

United Kingdom, it remains to be seen if such an approach is on the inkling anywhere

in India. ‘Living with floods’ is not a fatalistic defeat against the forces of nature.

Rather, it is a decentralised approach which means letting the river flow with

minimum interference.

The theoretical framework

This study, focusses is on the subjective meaning of reality (in this case the

experience of flood) and the articulation of this meaning by people. As M.N. Srinivas

maintained, social knowledge is different in character from natural knowledge in that

it involves not only the intellect but the entire psyche, the human being as a whole

(Srinivas et al. 1979: ix). Since the emphasis here is on the social and people's

construction of reality and order, the study is predominantly rooted in a constructivist

paradigm.

The theoretical perspective adopted for this study is ethnomethodology. The

subject matter of ethnomethodological studies is to specify the naturally accountable

work of producing and describing the social facts of immortal, ordinary society

(Garfinkel 2007:14-15). Ethno refers to people, method is the way of making sense;

logy refers to the study of how people in different settings make meanings.

Ethnomethodology is thus, the means employed by people to make knowledge.

Knowledge has two parts-one of making meaning and the second is the action to

implement those meanings. Ethnomethods ensure the successful accomplishment of

everyday communication and activity (Jayaram, 1989).

In this study, ethnomethodology as the epistemological position. People in a

perennial flood ̶ prone area act on the basis of what is known to them and what they

understand about the relations between themselves and others, the circumstances of

32

their situations and the relevant norms which they should observe in carrying out their

activities. These are not theoretical objects but practical matters (Hester and Francis,

2004: 16-17). It justifies my assumption that that members of society possess a

practical, working knowledge of how to do the activities, in my research, those

pertaining to annual floods.

Ethnomethodology, has uniquely sought to respecify ordinary action as a topic of

inquiry in its own right. Its ordinariness lies in its mundane availability for the

members of society. The idea that the members of society ‘know what they are doing’

is taken seriously in ethnomethodology. It does not mean that ethnomethodology

advocates an individualist and subjectivist theory of action. Rather, it involves

recognition that the intelligibility of the myriad actions comprising social life is an

accomplishment of those engaged in them. It also does not advocate the incessant

questioning stance of post modernism either. It is only within academic discourse that

the possibility of questioning every common and plain understanding is a legitimate

activity. In ordinary life, this is not possible. In this sense, the skeptical character of

post-modernism and radical reflexivity would seem to have little relevance for how

people understand one another in everyday social life (ibid.: 5). Social ‘order’,

meaning the recognizable, intelligible, accountable features of such actions- the

features that make them ‘ordinary’ to those engaged in them- is reconceived as

endogenously produced. It is part and parcel of the ways that the members of society

realize ordinary action rather than being located at the level of theoretical abstractions

(ibid.: 3). Hence, reality is constructed by various actors and each actor gives reality a

diverse meaning.

As stated in the ontological assumption of the study, floods are an everyday reality

to people in areas of perennial flood. In that sense, they are ordinary and common

place and not always destructive. It is this everyday angle which is often neglected

both by policy makers and the academia. Ethnomethodology, with its focus upon the

methods by which observable social activities are produced and accomplished by

members of society, makes it possible to capture these voices (ibid.: 20). The over

emphasis on the disaster aspect has nullified the historical 'living with floods'

approach. In the enthusiasm to document the catastrophic consequences of floods,

people's voices have been silenced save for their accounts as victims. A study of

33

floods in a social constructivist approach allows me the space to include the voices as

well as the silences of people. The data collected as narratives and dialogues have

been analysed right from the time of the first conversation. A constant iteration

continues till the last interview was conducted. The analysis thus was also grounded

in a constructivist approach.

Constructivist Grounded Theory

This study rooted in social constructivist approach, relies on co-construction of data

by the researcher and the researched (Karollil 2010: 118). The data thus gathered

becomes meaningful in the constructivist grounded theory offered by Charmaz (2000)

is more appropriate than the grounded theory propounded originally by Glaser and

Strauss and Corbin. This is done keeping the aims and objectives of the research in

mind. The reality of floods are so much a part of the community, that when asked to

describe their relationship involves questioning common place notions which are not

discussed often.

First, this theory looks for the subject's unstated assumptions and implicit

meanings, because what participants assume or do not assume may be much more

important than what they talk about (Charmaz, 2000). Second, the theory recognises

that the researcher's values and biography enter the research at each stage – the

selection of the problems, the creation of categories, the integration of the constructed

theoretical framework. The value mediated, co-constructed nature of the theory means

that the research products are not seen as constituting the reality of the respondents',

knowledge reflects the viewed as well as the viewer (Charmaz, 2000). Finally, the

constructivist grounded theory allows for the theory to be applied to those who share

like experiences and hence remains open to further refinement. The findings of the

research are exclusive to the research setting. My presence in the setting has its own

bearing on the analysis. The findings cannot be generalised to locations other than the

given context.

Logic of procedure

My research concern began from a survey of literature on the issue of floods in India.

The information was available largely in the form of numbers. This included the area

34

affected by floods, number of people affected, human casualties, mortality of

livestock, damage to property and loss of workdays. The solutions to 'combat' floods

are also expressed either as kilometres of embankments built, tonnes of relief material

distributed or the amount of relief being inadequate. Rarely, does anything else

feature in the mention of floods. This technical understanding of floods is replete in

the reports brought forth by the National Flood Commission. This was different from

research on floods in Bangladesh which had made progress of he approach of living

with floods. The stance of 'living with floods' came from an entirely different

epistemological position. It assumed that if such an approach was being looked into in

the neighbouring Bangladesh, there was a possibility that this could also be an option

in Assam. It was the impetus to explore, describe and interpret the what, how and why

of floods in an active floodplain. This would lead to an understanding of floods as an

everyday reality for people. The logical position, thus, is inductive in nature where the

findings can be understood in the context they are situated in.

Methods of data collection

In order to capture the nature of reality, two methods were used. Ethnography was the

primary method which was supplemented by the case study method. This was done to

ensure that as many dimensions of reality could be captured. Both the methods were

used to get a picture which could bring forth multiple meanings of reality.

Ethnography. To capture the field level realities as a lived experience, the

ethnographic approach was most suitable for the study. Ethnography is characterised

by long drawn fieldwork, intensive interaction and intertwined collection and analysis

of data. The period of observation is not sporadic. In order to understand the society, a

long period of association is required and this association means living with the

people. Hence, field work is spread over a long period. The researcher undertakes the

data collection and is also involved deeply in the analysis of data such that the

persons involved in these processes are not separate entities. The process of data

collection and data analysis is not mutually exclusive. The logic in ethnography is

inductive in approach. Hence, an ethnographic research gives space to the polyphony

of voices, silences and multiple truths which emerge from a collective and shared

knowledge of more than one social reality.

35

Case study method. In addition to ethnography, the case study method was used. A

case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon

within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context

are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used (emphasis

mine) (Yin, 1984: 23). To this end, my study was fit for the use of the method. I

studied floods which were a phenomenon and also constitute a context in a flood

prone area which the Brahmaputra valley. An empirical study of floods needs to

understand this fine nuance and acknowledge this overlap. Second, as a researcher I

had no control over the phenomena of floods. Neither could I exercise control on the

policies which govern the response to floods. Third, the focus was on the real life

context of people who experience perennial floods and who have lived in the given

area for generations. The case study method helped to complete the puzzle, which is

the closest metaphor to describe my study. The case was that of people's

understanding and relationship to floods in flood prone areas of the Brahmaputra

valley. The case can be classified as a revelatory case where I strive to discover the

'social face' of floods as opposed to ways in which floods appear in prevalent

discourse. The case study was used to complement the method of ethnography.

Tools of data collection

People’s knowledge is vast. In order to capture this diversity in knowledge, various

groups of people were considered for the process of the study as stakeholders.

Stakeholders in this case included people from the communities, activists including

those who support and oppose the macro solutions, policy makers in the state and

national capital, policy implementers who make the policy work on the ground and

can also be community members, and significant others such as members of the

academia who are experts on floods, contractors, NGO members etc.

Different research methods were used in order to collect ethnographic data

appropriately and effectively. Since, the work in the community was ethnographic,

unstructured interview schedules were used for primary stakeholders. The primary

stakeholders included the members of the community in both the villages, elected

representatives, traditional heads, youth leaders and activists from the villages. The

unstructured schedules enabled me to include several aspects which I had not

36

included the first time round. In ̶ depth interviews and focussed conversations along

with non participant observation were used. The conversations enabled one to collect

local myths related to floods which are one of the richest sources of knowledge in any

community.

The meaning of the state is not uniform for different people or even for the same

person at different times. In order to ask what the state and its policy means to people,

a framework was needed that could incorporate abstract concepts like citizens and

democracy and concrete terms like populations and policies. The state in this case is

both a developmental state and an existential state. The state therefore exists as an

abstract entity that guarantees rights while it is also the day –to– day state that one

interacts with. The developmental state is the one which thinks of floods as a

problem. It was crucial to know from people whether their definition of the state is

distinct from the notion of governance both in an everyday manner and during floods.

For the secondary stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers, civil society

members and members of the student and the ethnic organisations, a semi structured

interview schedule was used. This helped to bring out the reality of living with floods

and the implications of flood based politics. Data was collected by means of

documents, newspapers, folk tales, folk songs, mouthpieces of student and ethnic

organisations, archives and physical artefacts.

The history of the evolution of flood policies required document based data which

were archival. Policy documents and working papers of the Assam and the Indian

government were studied. This was contrasted with different stages of economic and

political development in India to trace an evolutionary pattern of flood management.

In this case, archives and documents were the main source of data. Where the

objective was to understand people’s knowledge, narratives were used. The attempt

was not as so much to recreate the past, but rather use the history to discover the

sociological character of communities in their understanding and adaptation to floods

(Geertz, 1965). This included the examination of the characteristic order of the

society, which however fuzzy, it may be. In this manner ethnography replete with

thick description was the aim.

Wherever needed and possible, secondary sources and oral history were used to

construct a timeline of evolution of both policies and people’s adaptation to both

37

floods and flood policies. This, brought forth the dialectics of the policy level

implications with people’s knowledge which included both meanings and the

subsequent actions.

Research Setting

Assam has been one of the worst flood ̶ affected states almost every year, recorded

since 1952 (Munsi, 1998). The state faces annual flood fury during the monsoon and

of late flash floods due to release of water from the dams in Arunachal Pradesh (since

Assam is the lower riparian area) in addition to a massive problem of erosion. Forced

migration and landlessness are rampant. The only flood control measures are ageing

and incomplete embankments. While both the Brahmaputra and Barak valleys of the

state reel under floods, Dhemaji district, which was the field of study, is the worst

affected district in the Brahmaputra valley and in the state of Assam. This district is

ranked the lowest on Human Development Index (HDI) indicators in Assam.

Dhemaji

It is believed that in the 1240 CE the first King of Ahom reign Chow Chukafa

established his capital at a place named Haboong in the district of Dhemaji. Due to

perennial flood in the area the King shifted the capital from Haboong. After that the

area became under the rule of Chutias and it continued till 1523 CE. During 1523 CE

the then Ahom King Chuhung ̶ Moong attacked and kill the Chutia king Natipal and

as a result the area again became under the kingdom of Ahoms (Dhemaji District).

There are a number of mythological beliefs regarding the origin of the name

"Dhemaji". One of the most popular beliefs is that there was a river which used to

change its course very frequently and resulted unanticipated flood covering different

parts of the area. Hence the river was believed to be a kind of evil spirit. The

Assamese version of the words flood and playing are "Dhal" and "Dhemali"

respectively and therefore the area when flood is a perennial phenomenon may be

called as a playground for flood i.e., in Assamese it became to be "Dhal Dhemali".

With time the word "Dhal" was omitted and the word "Dhemali" started to be

pronounced as "Dhemaji" (Government of Assam). The people in this district, had

faced floods much before the modern State came into existence. Hence, the

38

indigenous people have their own adaptive mechanisms to deal with floods in

addition to the flood control measures being carried out by the state.

The district is located in the northernmost corner of Assam, bordering Arunachal

Pradesh in the north and the east, Lakhimpur district on the west and the Brahmaputra

to the south. Geographically situated between the 940 12' 18'' E and 950 41' 32'' E

longitudes and 270 05' 27'' N and 270 57' 16'' N latitudes, the district covers an area of

3237 Sq. Km and is a basically plain area lying at an altitude of 104 m above the

mean sea level. The district has many rivers prominent of which are Brahmaputra,

Silley, Sibia , Leko, Jonai Korong, Dikhari, Narod, Somkhong, Tongani, Burisuti,

Simen, Dimou, Gainadi, Moridhal, Jiadhal/Kumotia, Korha/Sila, Charikaria, Nonoi,

Sampara Suti, Subansiri, other small tributaries.

The district has two sub divisions Dhemaji and Jonai. Five development blocks

viz. Dhemaji, Machkhowa, Murkongselek, Sisirborgaon and Bordoloni. The

district headquarters are at Dhemaji.

The entire Dhemaji district area was originally inhabited by various indigenous

tribes like Mising, Sonowal Kachari, Bodo Kachari, Deori and Laloong. In addition to

this different tribes e.g. Ahom, Rabha, Tai ̶ Khamti, Konch, Keot, Koiborta, Brahman,

Kayastha, Kalita etc. were migrated during different moments of time span

(Government of Assam, n.d.). Dhemaji district has a total population of 688,077 as

per 2011 census, which includes 353,043 males and 335,034 females, sex ratio being

949 females per thousand males. The average density is 213 per sq. km. The schedule

tribe and schedule caste population of the district is 47.29 per cent and 5.33 per cent

respectively of the total population (ibid.). The urban population is only 1.85 per cent,

which indicates the predominantly rural character of the district. The literacy rate is

69.07 per cent with the male literacy rate at 75.66 per cent and that of females is

62.13 per cent. The decadal rate of growth is 20.30.

In the district the research was conducted in the villages of Narayanpur and

Harinathpur. Both the villages were located on the Gai, a tributary of the Brahmaputra

and the Brahmaputra itself was at a walking distance from these villages. The Gai had

changed its course three times in the last three decades. As I was about to discover,

the changing course was a regular event and there were myths associated with this.

Narayanpur was a Mising village. Harinathpur was a Hajong village. The Hajongs,

39

are not indigenous to Assam. They are settled in different parts of Assam and

Meghalaya. The group resided on the foothills of the Assam-Bangladesh border as

well as the hills on Meghalaya-Bangladesh border. This group migrated from the

western border of Assam, and even from erstwhile East Pakistan to their current

location. At the beginning of the research, the focus was on the adaptation strategy of

the Misings since they were indigenous to the area. But the Hajong village meant a

greater diversity in the nature of reality to be captured. This was done on three counts.

First, a population which was tribal but not indigenous in this valley would provide an

opportunity to see if traditional indigenous knowledge had any role to play in

adaptation to floods. Second, the Misings being indigenous were a politically and

numerically dominant group. They were indigenous to the area. The question on the

how different communities experienced floods were better answered because of this

inclusion. This was an improvisation done in the field. This required, some minor

modifications in the interview plan. Third, the Hajongs spoke Assamese, a language I

am proficient in. Hence, it enabled me to communicate well.

FIELDWORK EXPERIENCE

'The course of intensive fieldwork is rarely smooth: only some paths are more strewn with thorns than others' (Srinivas et al. 1979: viii).

A research in the qualitative tradition is characterised by its cyclical nature and

simultaneity of data collection, analysis and interpretation of data. In this case, the

assumptions made, the epistemological position assumed, the logic of procedure and

the choice of methods and subsequent tools and techniques, demonstrate the research

problem at hand to warrant a qualitative inquiry.

The researcher

As a social work student, my exposure to sociology and social anthropology were, at

rudimentary. There is no denying that in attempting an ethnographic research not

being formally trained in either sociology or social anthropology was a definite

drawback. Fieldwork in my understanding and experience had meant the streamlined

interactions I had had during the practical component of social work training. Clearly

40

an ethnographic field was something totally different and challenging as it was

interesting. My training in methodology helped me to develop an intellectual acumen

to attempt a daunting task. But qualitative research required something in addition to

intellectual acumen. This was a skill which I could develop only by doing. I was more

than ready to try and become a qualitative researcher. Insatiable curiosity had often

landed me in trouble with teachers in school. My constant badgering did not go down

too well always. Fortunately, in qualitative research this was looked upon as a virtue.

My social work training had trained me to develop an open mind and develop

empathy with 'others'. This included the capacity to listen. The interest edged out the

challenge and I decided to undertake an ethnographic research.

If I was a newcomer to ethnographic research, I was an even later entrant to my

research site. While Assam has been the state of my residence for a decade, I was a

stranger to the larger areas of the state. I speak, read and write Assamese fluently. Yet

my proficiency fails in detailed knowledge of the area and its inhabitants. Moreover,

my research site was more Assam than Guwahati could ever be. On yet another

account, I was a novice. Add to it, in the classic dilemma of fieldwork, I was an

'insider' to the larger geographical area but a relative 'outsider' given my ethnic, socio-

economic, educational affiliations. While I kept working on my methodology, the

thought of being refused entry or being unaccepted, loomed large. Yet, naïve as it may

seem, I had implicit faith in the unsurpassed hospitality characteristic of Assam and I

decided to go ahead. A pleasant exception to all this was the fact that contrary to a lot

of fieldwork accounts, gender was never a concern.

Such a detailed account of the researcher would seem unnecessary on most counts.

But qualitative research is relevant only within a context. The researcher is an integral

part of the context, at times crucial in defining the context. In an ethnographic work,

the researcher is not a value neutral scientist. In the pages to follow, the use of 'I' will

be liberal and deliberate.

The participants

Ethnographic fieldwork is more than data collection. It refers to engagement with

people over a long period in their natural setting. The primary site for ethnographic

was a predominantly rural district in northern Assam bordering Arunachal Pradesh.

41

The district had a notorious distinction for being worst hit by the annual floods. This

was quite a feat considering twenty seven of Assam's twenty nine districts are flooded

every year. This apart, the district had a predominantly tribal population, the Misings,

who had inhabited the valley for generations. It remained to be known, whether, this

inhabitation was out of choice or compulsion. On most counts, this was the 'ideal'

context to investigate a possible alternate epistemology of disaster.

As mentioned, the research setting was entirely alien to me. In order to get a sense

of things around me, I sought the help of a NGO in the area with its headquarters in

Silapathar, which was the commercial hub of the district. Except for the introductory

letter issued by Tata Institute of Social Sciences, I had little else to approach them

with in September 2010. However, the response I received was very encouraging. I

was assigned a senior community worker who very kindly took me on a tour of

Dhemaji district and the bordering areas of Lakhimpur district which comprised some

of the worst flood hit areas. A month later, I had decided 'my' villages and had my

first key informant. This tour gave me a sense of the issue of floods, an insight into

the Mising society and the general functioning of the entire area. This was my first

breakthrough.

The first day in the village remains a memorable one. I was very fortunate to be

able to work with two college graduates ̶ Ratna Hajong was a teacher and a Binoy

Pegu a farmer. They were active in the civil society movements and groups in the area

and extremely articulate. They introduced me to their lives, worlds and societies.

Since, I wanted inputs on a variety of topics related to floods, I had a fairly wide

inclusive criteria. The participants in both villages were to be included on the basis of

criteria of age, gender, socio-economic status, educational achievements, profession,

political affiliations and duration of stay in the village. I was successful in being able

to speak to the oldest members in the two villages, a large number of women, landless

labourers and landowning peasant families. My key informants widened to include

elected members to the panchayat, wards, health workers and members of the local

disaster management committees formed by the NGO previously mentioned. At the

close of my fieldwork in July 2011, I had had the opportunity to get a glimpse into the

lives of many who made up these two villages.

The visit to the District Commissioner's (DC) Office at Dhemaji was also an

42

important step. The DC was reputed to be a hard working and sincere individual. My

meeting with him lasted for about an hour which I later followed up with two other

meetings. My subsequent visits to Dhemaji enabled me to meet the District Disaster

Management Officer and the acting Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) for the

Sissiborgaon block where the village was located. My meeting with the relevant

mondol (local revenue clerk) was extremely interesting. It is common knowledge that

the mondol is a very important and hence extremely corrupt official. Anticipating a

rough meeting, I had requested the SDO I had met earlier to let the mondol know of

my impending visit. On my visit, I was met with the most helpful mondol who helped

me to sift through the records of the village. At the end of this fruitful discussion, I

was requested to tell SDO sir that I had been helped. The villagers were astonished

that I was able to meet the mondol without having to spend anything more than six

rupees on a cup of tea. During the later half of my fieldwork, the DC was transferred

to another location. Since, the floods in the later half were particularly bad, I was

unable to meet the new DC.

In Guwahati I met people who had worked on floods and flood related issues at the

level of the government, civil society, academia, activists and creative artists. These

interviews were conducted in Assamese and English. The key informant at this stage

connected me to relevant people in several sectors. I had the opportunity to meet

engineers who were the brains behind most of the flood related interventions carried

on. I also had the opportunity to attend two workshops on related topics.

Thanks to the Calcutta Research Group, during the course of my field work, I had

the wonderful chance to visit the Brahmaputra basin and Sunderbans in Bangladesh.

During my short visit, I could meet people who promoted 'living with the floods

approach'. I also could meet few villagers in villages affected by annual floods and

observe similarities in terms of adaptive mechanisms to floods.

The process of data collection

I was the nucleus of attention for the first month of my stay at the village. A sense of

novelty on my coming from Mumbai (ignoring the fact that I identified my hometown

as Guwahati) and being a relatively young woman, worked to my advantage. I was

not for once refused admission to any house or office. The fact that I was not

conversant with Mising or Hajong dialects did not prove much of a difficulty. I did

43

understand rudimentary Hajong because of its proximity to Assamese and I began to

comprehend Mising during my stay in the village. Yet my fluency in Assamese,

helped me to talk to people in both the villages.

As way of introduction, I would mention my name, purpose of visit and

hometown. Interestingly, it was my surname which was more the centre of attraction.

I got used to people asking me ki likhe (what is your surname). As a matter of probe,

in later interviews I would mention my name and wait for people to ask me the

inevitable question, ki likhe. This was a matter of routine in the village and in the

town area of Dhemaji and Silapathar irrespective of people's social affiliations.

However, very few questions were asked about my marital status, at least in the

beginning. I was addressed as aapuni (the respectful way of addressing elders, aap is

the hindi equivalent) by people irrespective of their age and gender.

I began my first enquiries with my key informants. This was spread over a few

weeks and were long and intensive. After the first week, I was able to gain access to

other members of the village. Almost everyone knew me or had heard of me at the

end of the first week. This made my task of meeting new people easier, but I still had

to tell people why I was there because I could not rely on the information by way of

hearsay which may have distorted my intent. Soon I was a familiar feature in the

weekly markets, people's homes or courtyards, festivities, weavers' meetings and in

field during the harvest season. I was able to meet the Mising men easily because

most of them would be at home. This was quite surprising especially since it was

harvest time. But soon enough I realised that the older men had not been farming for a

decade now. A lot of farm land had been covered by a layer of sand and deposits

making land unsuitable for farming. The women, on the other hand, helped in

harvesting community lands, or worked as farmhands for the more prosperous

farmers. The Mising women were clearly the more hard working lot as compared to

the men. I had to seek appointments to meet the women barring the oldest one, while

the men were available most of the time. The initial interviews lasted for several

sessions and many hours. But towards the the second month, I had become more

aware of my bearings and the subsequent sessions were much shorter.

In the case of Hajongs, the men and women both worked either on their small plots

or as farmhands on fields belonging to the Misings, Bengalis or Nepalis. It was a

44

common site to houses locked during the day in the Hajong villages. It was even more

difficult to meet people during the harvest season. Even my key informant had to take

leave from her job to help in the harvest. Since I did not want to idle, I would

accompany people to the field carrying out my conversation during this time. It

seemed too heartless to disturb the people during the lunch break. I utilised this time

to tour the rest of the district and also meet up with the officials and people in the

town.

My presence in both the villages caused a minor 'sensation'. During the initial

visits to the key informants' houses, I would be trailed by the children. The elders

were more discreet. Yet by the time I finished my conversation, there would be more

people than the one I had started with. It made me aware that individual meetings

were near impossible. Privacy and confidentiality were luxuries which were very rare.

It was common practice to start with one person and find myself in a group. I could

echo Chakravarti's sentiments when he writes,

'as soon as I reached the village I asked to see Bhim Singh. I was directed to the village square where a shopkeeper who had seen me the previous day spread a mat for me and urged me to feel at home. Within a short while a group of men and children collected and I was embarrassed to find myself the centre of attraction. With the arrival of Bhim Singh I soon became a target of a series of questions on what sociologists term as 'social background'. My own curiosity to learn something about the village was smothered by the barrage of questions fired at me' (Chakravarti 1979: 41).

I let this happen and although FGDs were not listed as a tool in my initial plan, I

had conducted FGDs by default. This greatly enriched my data. It also highlighted the

non –individual character of the community where privacy was evidently not a value.

With my key informants of course, I had a lot of individual sessions spanning hours

after the initial excitement gave way.

The year 2011 was also the year of the assembly elections in Assam and the

census. This gave me a unique opportunity to see the political side of Assam and its

villages. Elections were akin to a mini festival and since it was coinciding with Bihu,

which is the Assamese New Year, it was in a sense double festivity. During the run up

to the elections, I was reprimanded for not having included my name in the voters list

and offered help to do the same. People were clearly more aware of their franchise

than most of my contemporaries in urban circles.

When my fieldwork ended in July 2011, Assam was in the grip of floods yet again.

This year round, villages further north to 'my' villages were severely affected by flash

45

floods. I had the opportunity to witness the floods first hand in the village and other

areas. In some areas, the floods would have been beautiful had they not been tragic. It

was at this time that I could see the dynamics of a good and bad flood and the relief

associated with it.

My stint in Guwahati was very different from that in the village. I had to rely on

personal networks to gain entry into offices. Officials refused to grant me permission

to record their accounts. Some questions were not deemed relevant and I was told that

the upcoming dams in Arunachal Pradesh would solve the issue of floods. The

meetings with the academia were more relaxed and they willingly shared their

opinions and publications with me. They gave me directions where I could probe

further. The interviews and meetings here lasted for about two hours on an average

and in very few places did I need to go back a second time.

Studying one's own culture ̶ An insider as an outsider

Social anthropology was born in an era of imperialism. Societies which were studied

were often colonies of the British Empire. Hence, the information obtained could be

used for planning and better administration of these territories which was beneficial

for the rulers. The insistence of observation from within, led to the emergence of

participation in observation. A researcher, in most of the early anthropological studies,

would be an outsider. Learning the local language implied far greater acceptability

and understanding in observation.

It was assumed that an outsider would include such knowledge about groups

because they are unprejudiced by membership in them. An outsider as a researcher

was purported to be less prejudiced. The outsider was not tied down in action by habit

and precedent and was more apt to observe social institutions and culture in

detachment, many features of society and culture which an insider would deem

natural and therefore unworthy of notice. This would strike the outsider as unusual

and interesting and was hoped that there would be an absence of initial pre

occupation/prejudice in the outsider. An outsider researching a society has to regard

oneself as less informed about the community.

As a reaction to this, M.N. Srinivas was instrumental in taking India as an

anthropological field of study. He disagreed that only an outsider was capable of

46

studying a society objectively. Rather he said that the kind of insights an insider has

into his own society are unmatched by that of an outsider. To Indian anthropology it

brought a perspective from within, of self understanding and reflexivity in the

ethnographic process. Srinivas in a way sparked off the debate of the insider and

outsider in Indian anthropology.

The ontological assumptions of the insider as a researcher include first, that the

social position wholly determines intellectual perspective. Second, there is total

coincidence between social position and individual perspective. Third privileged or

monopolistic access to particular kinds of knowledge on basis of biological and social

grounds [uncorrupted version]. Fourth, the continued socialization makes him fully

aware of its symbolisms and socially shared realities. Finally, the innermost recesses

of the culture are more accessible to the native. But given the country's diversity, the

notion of the insider and the outsider is not always so clear. In India, the line between

the insider and the outsider can be rather fuzzy. To quote Srinivas,

'One's own society is often so difficult to define. India has such a great linguistic, social and cultural diversity that most Indians know only a tiny segment of it and is frequently confused with the culture of the country. Every fieldworker, has shown how he is a stranger, in more sense than one, in the field, and this applied even to those who worked in their own linguistic region. Each had to face problems of entry into the field and of establishing rapport with the people. Their experience shows how limited is the validity of the statement that fieldwork in one's own society than in an alien one. The problem is not that of relative ease or difficulty on either but that of identifying the specific problems of both' (Srinivas 1979: 3).

This was my predicament when I began my study. I was an insider in some sense

and an outsider in most others. The ongoing ethnic conflict in the region have

contributed in widening a sense of othering to those who do not belong to a group.

My constant worry was the refusal of admission to the group because of my ethnic

affiliations. As I progressed, this fear was unfound. Yet the sense of othering was not

completely absent during my fieldwork, neither did I hope for it to be so. I would be

rather naïve to think that in such a ethnically charged region it would be possible

either. But, as I discovered, ethnic differences were not always detrimental to my

work. At times my total 'outsiderness' helped me to be shown things, made aware of

customs and be invited to a lot of households as a tourist would be. This helped me

understand things at the most basic level and my 'stupid' questions would be

entertained patiently.

My entry into the field was typical of an insider that I knew where I had to head to.

47

Beyond it, I was an outsider. My entry into the fieldwork was through my informants.

As Triloki Pandey (1979: 246) notes, the relationship one build with informants

transforms a callow observer into an anthropologist. The entry into the field is as a

stranger, and it is only with the help of informants, who are also strangers, that one

comes to acquire knowledge about them and their ways of life. An informant helps

the anthropologist to understand the problems of concern and is the key to open up an

unknown world of thoughts and ideas (ibid.: 262). A great disadvantage with the

informant-researcher relationship is the asymmetry. A nagging sense of guilt towards

'using' people to achieve my end plagued me through my fieldwork and continues to

do so even now. As others before me have admitted, the study is primarily for my

gain and progress in my academic pursuits. I was careful not to promise anything and

clear to the point of being blunt that I could offer nothing in return for their time nor

be able to provide any solution to the problems they faced. Yet, the sense of guilt is

far from over. This is possibly a common feeling that a researcher, whether an insider

or outsider faces. In the eyes of the informant, an anthropologist, be an 'insider' or an

'outsider', has a superior status, since it is the informant who is the object of the study,

and the anthropologist rarely reports how he is viewed by the people he studies. This

is also a serious ethical issue with fieldwork. This is not to say that some

anthropologists have not made any difference in the condition and lives of people

they have worked with. They have. The question is rather personal; will I be an

ethical researcher if I am unable to do anything for the people who gave me nine

months of their lives?

Fieldwork was a humbling and life changing experience. Apart from the

ruralisation of an urban individual, it made research a very personal and enriching

experience. The very act of fieldwork, and the extended period spent in the field drew

me into life of the community in a manner that seriously affects the ability to remain

detached. A field situation has its own logic and it is difficult for someone who is

rubbing shoulders with his hosts to maintain a clinical or impersonal view of people

and events (Chakravarti 1979: 38). It enabled me to look at people in their contexts

and in the process shed my prejudices and sense of superiority. I was able to put

myself in the position of individuals from diverse backgrounds, and see the world as

they see it. Apart from collecting accurate information on a variety of items, I made a

48

beginning to be able to think and feel like the people I studied (Srinivas 1979: 8).

When I entered the field, I had a vague idea of what I wanted to know. My interview

guides were realistic enough, though I made changes quite often. Apart from wanting

to study floods, I found myself in the midst of movements which were in opposition

to the mega dams being constructed in the neighbouring state of Arunachal Pradesh. I

was also able to witness movements demanding accountability from the government.

The elections, census operation and flood related work were unique experiences that I

could capture. While I felt I was being unfair to people for whom I could do nothing,

I learnt to relate with them as people, accepting the credibility of their values, the

validity of their feelings, the merit of their opinions and their worth as human beings

(Pandey 1979: 246). To quote Solon Kimball and James B. Watson,

'doing this daily during fieldwork requires an act of personal involvement and commitment. Doing it well requires sensitivity, sociability, intuition and understanding. Thus, the field becomes a ''testing grounds for his skills, his quality as a craftsman'' '(1972:1).

To conclude, I would say that fieldwork is the only way to study issues that affect

people. Mao Tse–tung, in all probability did not have fieldwork in mind, when he

addressed his party workers. Yet, the essence of fieldwork is brilliantly captured in

what he says,

Many of our comrades still have a crude and careless style of work, do not seek to understand things thoroughly and may even be completely ignorant of conditions at the lower levels. … This is an extremely dangerous state of affairs... the basic methods for knowing conditions is to concentrate on a few cities and villages according to a plan, … and make a number of thorough investigations. Only thus can we acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge of … social problems. To do this, first direct your eyes downwards, do not hold your head high and gaze into the sky. Unless a person is interested in turning his eyes downward and is determined to do so, he will never in his whole life really understand things … (Mao 1965:11) cited in (Srinivas 1979: 3).

Having discussed the field and the methodology involved, the next section sets the

historical context in which the floods in the Brahmaputra valley have been understood

and lived with. Its uses the formal and non formal sources of knowledge to look at the

relationship that the people and communities have shared with the river and the floods

which it experiences every years.