“Write short note on Ethnicity and Development.” (2010)
Modernisation theorists expected development to dissolve ethnic ties into a common national identity. Walker Connor’s “Nation-Building or Nation-Destroying?” (1972) showed that this assumption ignored the evidence. The relationship in fact runs both ways: development produces ethnicity, and ethnicity shapes development.
How development produces ethnicity
- Uneven development and internal colonialism. Michael Hechter’s Internal Colonialism (1975) argued that when industry concentrates in a core region, a cultural division of labour assigns peripheral groups to low-status work. Their grievance then takes ethnic form. The Jharkhand movement framed the extraction of minerals from Adivasi lands in similar terms.
- Displacement. Walter Fernandes estimated that tribals form about 40% of people displaced by development projects, although they are 8.6% of India’s population (Census 2011).
- Competition for new opportunities. Myron Weiner’s Sons of the Soil (1978) linked nativist movements, such as the Shiv Sena in Bombay and the Assam movement of 1979–85, to migrants competing with locals for jobs created by development.
- Relative deprivation. Donald L. Horowitz (Ethnic Groups in Conflict, 1985) showed that the likelihood of secessionist demands depends on whether a group and its region are economically advanced or backward.
How ethnicity shapes development
- Mobilisation for a share of development. Ethnic groups press the state as interest groups:
- Linguistic states and Sixth Schedule councils channelled such claims.
- The Bodo Accord (2020) created the Bodoland Territorial Region with development packages.
- In Ladakh, the September 2025 protests for Sixth Schedule safeguards turned violent in Leh, and four people were killed.
- Contesting the development model. In the Niyamgiri case (2013), the Supreme Court let gram sabhas decide on bauxite mining, and all twelve rejected it on grounds of Dongria Kondh religious and cultural rights.
- Special provisions and recognition. Fifth Schedule areas and tribal sub-plans tie development funds to ethnic status. This can harden boundaries as groups compete for recognition, as the Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe status shows.
- Conflict as a brake. William Easterly and Ross Levine (“Africa’s Growth Tragedy”, 1997) linked high ethnic fragmentation to poor public goods and slower growth. In Manipur, Meitei–Kuki-Zo violence since 2023 has displaced about 60,000 people and halted development work.
- Ethnic capital. Trading communities such as the Marwaris, and diaspora networks, show that ethnic trust can also speed up development.
Towards ethnodevelopment
Rodolfo Stavenhagen proposed ethnodevelopment: development defined and controlled by the ethnic group itself, respecting its culture and resources. In India this principle appears in:
- Jawaharlal Nehru’s tribal Panchsheel;
- the PESA Act, 1996, which gives gram sabhas authority over resources;
- the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
Virginius Xaxa (State, Society and Tribes, 2008) shows that implementation lags. Scheduled Tribe literacy was 58.96% against 72.99% nationally (Census 2011).
Conclusion
Ethnicity is neither a relic that development erases nor simply an obstacle to it. It is often the language in which unequal development is contested. Inclusive, participatory development that shares benefits and respects autonomy turns ethnic assertion from conflict into citizenship.