For all the trappings of newer ways, changes in girls’ and women’s perceptions about themselves and those of society about women are slower to emerge. Girls’ lives thus remain limited by social mores and the persistence of codes shaping gendered behaviour that affect their ability to take advantage of the few opportunities available to them in the broader world. This is the double-bind created by a wider social environment that offers the young, girls as well as boys, a glimpse of ways of life that feed into their aspirations, but also persistent limitations laid down by families that limit their ability to truly spread their wings.
Girls speak of the opportunities that would be available to them
elsewhere: access to better and higher education, training in vocational skills, access to the use of computers, learning English, and greater avenues for shopping and for travelling. They long to make these and other trappings of ‘modern’ sensibilities introduced via television and social media their own: the freedom to choose what they wear and where they work where the privilege of anonymity allows escape from constant familial monitoring. Here they collide with reality: many families refuse to give their consent for their daughters to study or work elsewhere on the grounds that, unmonitored, a girl’s morality can all too easily be called into question. There is also the persistence of a line of thinking that if girls pursue their own lives, they will continue ‘getting spoilt’ (bigad jaana); even parents who aim for something more for their daughters are aware that when the time for marriage comes, the sasural (the in-law’s house) will not want ‘that kind’ of daughter-in-law, one who prioritises her own independence.16
16 For a discussion of the harassment girls and women routinely face in towns and cities see Gadekar (2016).
CH.2 CH.1
CH.3 CH.4
← TC CH.5 CH.6 CH.7 CH.8 E.S.
A gendered analysis of educational attainment and associated
aspirations uncovers complex dynamics that suggest that while Pahadi girls are experiencing important changes in their lives, arguably these are superficial rather than substantive. This dynamic begins early on in the domain of education, which is of poor quality in the hills, and most young people – boys and girls alike – from rural backgrounds are ill-equipped to get well paid jobs in a town. Provisions to challenge gender inequality in education have gained traction over the last two decades under the government-led scheme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (Education for All) which, along with the Right to Education Act 2009, mandates that both boys and girls are expected to attend school. However, high enrolments have not challenged gender stereotypes which are, in fact, often reinforced by teachers and textbooks and do not necessarily build confidence in girls to make decisions about their own lives.
While gender norms and practices are slowly becoming less restrictive, as discussed above, boys continue to be permitted greater leeway in taking time for themselves. At the same time, their sisters are expected to share in domestic chores and, if needed, fetch fuelwood and fodder.
Gender-differentiated roles and responsibilities, along with cultural entitlements to act in a certain way, have bearings on girls’ and women’s confidence in stepping into non-traditional spaces, reflected in lower female participation in education and, subsequently, in community-level matters (Pande, 2001). One consequence is that in adulthood, men participate more in public spaces and engage in community networks while women, even those who are educated, tend to limit themselves to traditional household activities.
Given the limited opening up of opportunities for girls, their lives continue to be viewed through the prism of marriage and eventually motherhood.
Here a regressive ideal of domesticity is emerging, especially amongst young women from relatively well-off families who seek to emulate a middle-class standard of living by ‘protecting’ their status through ‘being at home’ rather than ‘in the fields.’
Reflections
This paper has attempted to bring alive a moment of transition in rural Uttarakhand which, through a dialogic and participatory methodological approach, helped us to look beyond prevailing truisms about mountain communities and women’s lives and to focus on the changing aspirations of a younger generation of girls and women. Certainties about a ‘village way’ of life and of gendered agro-ecological relationships and labour
CH.2 CH.1
CH.3 CH.4
← TC CH.5 CH.6 CH.7 CH.8 E.S.
patterns that might have prevailed in an earlier time can no longer be taken for granted. This is the main policy implication our work brings to the table, which needs to inform the reshaping of sustainable mountain development. Even modest village households wear an increasingly
‘urban’ face which is reflective of new types of work in new places and diversified income sources, and are characterised by a greater diversity of needs, concerns and interests. Trajectories of change over the past few decades have altered physical, material and social landscapes;
resource endowment is undergoing a change, as are relationships to the land and natural resources that were once central to the Pahadi domestic economy. Agriculture and its allied activities, which have long held a prominent place in the way hill women’s lives have been thought of, are now giving way to more diverse and complex realities shaped by these intersecting circumstances.
These findings offer insights of both theoretical and practical importance toward understanding contemporary socio-ecological realities in the mountains generally, and the varied and complex ways in which they are expressed across generations particularly. They have a contribution to make to a much-needed dialogue about how development policy can become more attuned to on-the-ground situations and conditions in mountain areas and offer a foundation upon which to build further research. While it fell outside the scope of this chapter to talk about the generational divide in the context of communities’ lived experiences and their perceptions of adverse (often) recurring environmental events, in closing it is useful to bring these two issues together.17 At a time when the young are moving away from the land, literally and aspirationally, climate-induced variability and the impacts of climate change are contributing to the declining quality of agriculture and natural resource endowment, and the more frequent extreme weather events are creating new levels of uncertainty, risk and vulnerability.
Against this backdrop, the voices of young women suggest an urgent need to interrogate what older understandings of a ‘mountain perspective’ and ‘sustainable development’ mean for the communities of the Uttarakhand Himalaya at this juncture of the 21st century. Many youth desire to live another kind of life and experience a dilemma. While they
17 See Ritu (2020) for a discussion on the phrase “adverse environmental events” which better reflects the grounded reality of complex and varied encounters with natural hazards (such as the considerably common experience of recurring landslides in the region) than what is suggested by a focus on catastrophic events. Such events can introduce new dimensions of risk and vulnerability that are often considerably more complex and diverse than what is evident from a focus on big events that more readily catch public and bureaucratic attention due to their sensational attributes.
CH.2 CH.1
CH.3 CH.4
← TC CH.5 CH.6 CH.7 CH.8 E.S.
are proud to call themselves Pahadi, they are acutely aware that there are perhaps not many resources available in their villages to pursue their aspirations. In no longer prioritising the environment and agriculture in their lives, this younger generation offers a reminder of the changing face of the social capital of these mountain communities. The existence of an educated and youthful population familiar with social media and technology opens the possibility of developing a more dynamic and layered conversation, which could be directed toward engaging with disaster-risk reduction initiatives and forging new pathways to develop sustainable nature-based approaches. Rural and urban areas in these fragile environments urgently require these new approaches.
References
• Adhikari, L., Hussain, A. and Rasul, G. (2017). ‘Tapping the Potential of Neglected and Underutilised Food Crops for Sustainable Nutrition Security in the Mountains of Pakistan and Nepal’. Sustainability 9 (2):291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020291.
• Batliwala, S. and Dhanraj, D. (2007). ‘Gender Myths that Instrumentalise Women: A View from the Indian Frontline’. In: A. Cornwall, E. Harrison and A. Whitehead (eds.) Feminisms in Development: Contradictions, Contestations and Challenges, pp.21–34. London:
Zed Press. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350220089.ch-002.
• Baviskar, A. (2018). ‘Consumer Citizenship: Instant Noodles in India’. Gastronomica:
The Journal of Critical Food Studies, 18 (2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1525/gfc.2018.18.2.1.
• Berreman, G.D. (1963). Hindus of the Himalayas: Ethnography and Change. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
• Berry, K. and Gururani, S. (2014). ‘Gender in the Himalaya’. HIMALAYA: The Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies 34 (1): 36-42.
• Bhagwat, S.A. and Rutte, C. (2006). ‘Sacred Groves: Potential for Biodiversity Management’. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4 (10):519–524.
https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[519:sgpfbm]2.0.co;2.
• Bisht, T. S., and Bhatt, A. B. (2011). ‘Sacred Groves: A Traditional Way of Conserving Biodiversity in Garhwal Himalayas, Uttarakhand’. Community-based Biodiversity Conservation in the Himalayas, pp. 61-74.
• Caetano, A. (2014). ‘Reflexivity and Social Change: A Critical Discussion of Reflexive Modernisation and Individualisation Theses’. Portuguese Journal of Social Science 13 (1):93–109. https://doi.org/10.1386/pjss.13.1.93_1.
• Dalmia, V. and Sadana, R. (eds.) (2012). The Cambridge Companion to Modern Indian Culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521516259.
• Dame, J. and Nüsser, M. (2011). ‘Food security in high mountain regions: agricultural production and the impact of food subsidies in Ladakh, Northern India’. Food Security 3 (2):179–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0127-2.
CH.2 CH.1
CH.3 CH.4
← TC CH.5 CH.6 CH.7 CH.8 E.S.
• Dyson, J. (2010). ‘Friendship in Practice: Girls’ Work in the Indian Himalayas’. American Ethnologist 37 (3):482–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2010.01267.x.
• --- (2014). Working Childhoods: Youth, Agency and the Environment in India.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Everard, M., Gupta, N., Scott, C.A., Tiwari, P.C., Joshi, B., Kataria, G. and Kumar, S. (2019).
‘Assessing Livelihood-Ecosystem Interdependencies and Natural Resource Governance in Indian Villages in the Middle Himalayas’. Regional Environmental Change 19 (1):165–177.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1391-x.
• Gadekar, U. (2016). ‘Eve Teasing and its Psychosocial Influence Among Adolescent Girls’.
International Journal of Current Advanced Research 5 (6):1028–1031.
• Ganguly-Scrase, R. and Scrase, T. J. (2008). Globalisation and the Middle Classes in India: The Social and Cultural Impact of Neoliberal Reforms. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203884393.
• Gautam, Y. and Andersen, P. (2017). ‘Multiple Stressors, Food System Vulnerability and Food Insecurity in Humla, Nepal’. Regional Environmental Change 17 (5):1493–1504.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1110-z.
• Glaser, B.G. (1992). Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis.
Mill Valley, USA: Sociology Press.
• Gokhale, Y. and Pala, N. A. (2011). ‘Ecosystem Services in Sacred Natural Sites (SNSs) of Uttarakhand: A Preliminary Survey’. Journal of Biodiversity 2 (2):107–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09766901.2011.11884731.
• Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967, 1995). The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick and London: Aldine Transaction.
• Gold, A.G. (2009). ‘Tasteless Profits and Vexed Moralities: Assessments of the Present in Rural Rajasthan’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15 (2):365–385.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01558.x.
• --- (2010). ‘New Light in the House: Schooling Girls in Rural North India’. In: D.P.
Mines and S.E. Lamb (eds.). Everyday Life in South Asia, pp.86–99. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• --- (2012). ‘Scenes of Rural Change’. In V. Dalmia and R. Sangana (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Modern Indian Culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ccol9780521516259.003.
• Government of India, Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India (2001). Census of India 2001: Provisional Population Totals. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs.
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-common/census_data_2001.html.
• Government of India (2011). Census of India 2001: Population Totals. New Delhi: Ministry of Home Affairs http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/CensusData2011.html.
• Government of Uttarakhand. (2014). Uttarakhand State Action Plan on Climate Change.
Dehradun, India: UNDP.
• Govindrajan, R. (2018). Animal Intimacies: Interspecies Relatedness in India’s Central Himalayas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.22582/am.v20i1.562.
• Gupta, D. (2005). ‘Whither the Indian Village?: Culture and Agriculture in “Rural” India’.
Review of Development and Change 10 (1):1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972266120050101.
CH.2 CH.1
CH.3 CH.4
← TC CH.5 CH.6 CH.7 CH.8 E.S.
• Gururani, S. (2000). ‘Regimes of Control, Strategies of Access: Politics of Forest Use in the Uttarakhand Himalaya, India.’ In: A. Ahharwal and K. Sivaramakrishnan (eds.) Agrarian Environments: Resources, Representation, and Rule in India. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11hpqk2.13.
• --- (2002). ‘Forests of Pleasure and Pain: Gendered Practices of Labour and Livelihood in the Forests of the Kumaon Himalayas, India’.
Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 9 (3):229–243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369022000003842.
• --- (2014). ‘“Geographies that Make Resistance”: Remapping the Politics of Gender and Place in Uttarakhand, India’. Himalaya: The Journal of the Association of Nepal and Himalayan Studies 34 (1).
• Ibrahim, A. (2012). ‘Voyeurism and the Family on Television’. In: V. Dalmia and R. Sadana (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Modern Indian Culture, pp. 264–282. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521516259.016.
• Jeffrey, C. (2010). ‘Timepass: Youth, Class, and Time Among Unemployed Young Men in India’. American Ethnologist 37 (3):465–481.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2010.01266.x.
• Johnson, K. (2005). ‘Globalisation at the Crossroads of Tradition and Modernity in Rural India’. Sociological Bulletin 54 (1):40–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920050103.
• Joshi, B.K. (2001). ‘Statehood and Beyond: Revisioning the Future of Uttarakhand’. In P.C.
Pandey, D.C. Pande and P.S. Bisht (eds.) Economy of Uttaranchal: Profile and Dynamics of Change, pp.120-134. Delhi: Anamika Pub & Distributors.
• Joshi, D. (2014). ‘Feminist Solidarity? Women’s Engagement in Politics and the
Implications for Water Management in the Darjeeling Himalaya’. Mountain Research and Development 34 (2):243–254. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd-journal-d-13-00097.1.
• Klenk, K. (2004). “Who is the Developed Woman?’: Women as a Category of Development Discourse, Kumaon, India’. Development and Change 35 (1):57–78.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00342.x.
• --- (2010). Educating Activists: Development and Gender in the Making of Modern Gandhians. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Kumar, K. (2014). ‘Rurality, Modernity, and Education’. Economic and Political Weekly 49 (22): 38–43.
• Leduc, B. (2009). ‘Gender and Climate Change in the Himalayas’ Background Paper for the E-discussion on ‘Climate Change in the Himalayas: The Gender Perspective’.
Organised by ICIMOD and APM, Kathmandu, Nepal, 5-25October 2009.
• Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2011). ‘Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences Revisited’. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp.97–128.
• Maikhuri, R. K., Rao, K. S. and Semwal, R. L. (2001). ‘Changing Scenario of Himalayan Agroecosystems: Loss of Agrobiodiversity, an Indicator of Environmental Change in Central Himalaya, India’. Environmentalist 21 (1):23–39.
• Mathur, N. (2015). Paper Tiger. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Mehta, M. (1994). ‘The Transformation of Subsistence Agriculture and Gender
Inequalities in a Central Himalayan Valley, Uttar Pradesh, India’. PhD dissertation. Boston:
Boston University.
• --- (1996). “‘Our Lives are No Different from That of Our Buffaloes’: Agricultural Change and Gendered Spaces in a Central Himalayan Valley.” In D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter and E. Wangari (eds.) Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local
Experiences, pp. 180–210. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203352205-17.
• Mills, J., Bonner, A., and Francis, K. (2006). ‘The Development of Constructivist Grounded Theory’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500103.
• Mines, D.P. and Lamb, S.E. (eds.). (2010). Everyday Life in South Asia, Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
• Mines, D.P. and Yazgi, N. (eds.). (2010). Village Matters: Relocating Villages in the Contemporary Anthropology of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Mintz, S.W. (1996). Tasting Food, Tasting Freedom: Excursions into Eating, Culture, and the Past. Boston: Beacon Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/4613639.
• Morse, J.M. (2001). ‘The Cultural Sensitivity of Grounded Theory’. Qualitative Health Research Vol 11 (6):721–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973201129119406.
• Nellemann, C., Verma, R. and Hislop, L. (eds.) (2011). Women at the Frontline of Climate Change: Gender Risks and Hopes. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal. Printed by Birkeland Trykkeri AS, Norway
• Ninan, S. (1995). Through the Magic Window: Television and Change in India. New Delhi:
Penguin Books.
• Niranjana, S. (1991). ‘Conceptualising the Indian Village: An Overview of the Indian Village Studies Tradition’. Indian Journal of Social Science 4 (3):371–385.
• Pande, A. (2001). ‘Education of Rural Children in UP Himalayas’. In A.Vaidyanathan and P.R. Nair (eds.) Elementary Education in Rural India: A Grassroots View. Strategies for Human Development in India. Volume 2. pp. 86–130.
• Pande, M. (2003). Stepping Out, Life and Sexuality in Rural India. Delhi: Penguin Books India.
• Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 2nd Edition. London:
Sage Publishing.
• Pigg, S.L. (1992). ‘Inventing Social Categories Through Place: Social Representations and Development in Nepal’. Comparative Studies in Society and History 34 (3):491–513.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0010417500017928.
• Redman-MacLaren, M.L. and Mills, J. (2015). ‘Transformational Grounded Theory: Theory, Voice, and Action’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 14 (3):1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400301.
• Resurrección, B.P., Goodrich, C.G., Song, Y., Bastola, A., Prakash, A., Joshi, D., Liebrand, J. and Shah, S.A. (2019). ‘In the Shadows of the Himalayan Mountains:
Persistent Gender and Social Exclusion in Development’. In: P. Wester, A. Mishra, A. Mukherji, and A. B. Shrestha (eds.) The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment—
Mountains, Climate Change, Sustainability and People, pp.491–516. Cham, Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92288-1_14.
• Ritu (2020). ‘Living with and Responding to Risk in the Uttarakhand Himalayas: A Call for Prioritising Lived Experiences in Research Policy Praxis’. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 48, 101499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101499.
CH.2 CH.1
CH.3 CH.4
← TC CH.5 CH.6 CH.7 CH.8 E.S.
• Rudaz, G. and Debarbieux, B. (2012). “Mountain Women”: Silent Contributors to the Global Agenda for Sustainable Mountain Development’. Gender, Place and Culture 19 (5):615–634.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369x.2011.625084.
• Sax, W. S. (2009). God of Justice: Ritual Healing and Social Justice in the Central Himalayas. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Seremetakis, C.N. (ed.). (1996). The Senses Still. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology. London and New York: Zed Books Ltd.
• Sijapati, M.A. and Birkenholtz, J.V. (eds.) (2016). Religion and Modernity in the Himalaya.
Oxon, UK: Routledge.
• Sinha, S., Gururani, S. and Greenberg, B. (1997). ‘The ‘New Traditionalist’ Discourse of Indian Environmentalism’. The Journal of Peasant Studies 24 (3):65–99.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066159708438643.
• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153.
• UEEC (2017). Reframing Discourses of Gender and Disaster: Pahadi Narratives of Change from Rural Uttarakhand. Project titled “Gender Issues in the Development of Ecologically Fragile Zones: A Case Study of Village Communities in Uttarakhand” ICSSR Sponsored Research Projects (Uttarakhand) F. No. RESPRO/61/2013-14/ICSSR/RPS.
CH.2 CH.1
CH.3 CH.4
← TC CH.5 CH.6 CH.7 CH.8 E.S.
CHAPTER
RESEARCH ARTICLE