1 2
SailenDutta,Dr(Mrs.)NayanmoniBorgohainBaruah1ResearchScholar,DepartmnetofEconomics, DibrugarhUniversity
2AssistantProfessor,DepartmentofEconomics,DibrugarhUniversity
Riverbankerosioncreatessocio-economicproblemsinAssam.Theriverbankerosioneffectsaresocialandeconomicaspectsofthepeople.Theriverbankerosion also affected in earning sources and creates some social problems such as health, education; housing etc.This leads the problem like displacement.The riverbank erosionhaslongtermimpactonlivelihoodandchangesthelivelihoodpatternofpeople.Maximumdisplacedpeopleneedtochangetheirinhabitanttonearbycitiesin searchofjobs.
KEYWORDS:Riverbankerosion,socio-economicimpact,displacement,livelihood.
Thedisplacementofpeoplereferstotheforcedmovementofpeoplefromtheir localityorenvironmentandoccupationalactivities.Itisaformofsocialchange caused by a number of factors such as armed conflict, natural disaster, famine, developmentandeconomicchangesetc.
Inregardtopopulationdisplacementresultingfromdevelopmenttherearetypicallytwotypes–Directdisplacementandindirectdisplacement.Directdisplacement leads to actual displacement of people from their locations. On the other hand,indirectdisplacement,leadstoalossoflivelihood.
Adisplaced person is a person who has been forced to leave his or her native place,aphenomenonknownasforcedmigration.Thetermwasfirstwidelyused during World War II and the resulting refugee outflows from Eastern Europe (MarkWyman),whenitwasusedtospecificallyrefertooneremovedfromhisor hernativeCountryasarefugee,prisoneroraslavelabourer Adisplacedperson may also be referred to a forced migrant. The term 'refugee' is also commonly usedasasynonymfordisplacedperson,causingconfusionbetweenthegeneral descriptiveclassofanyonewhohaslefttheirhomeandthesubgroupoflegally defined refugees who enjoy specified international legal protection. A.J.Jaffe claimedthatthetermwasoriginallybyEugeneM.Kulischer AccordingtoU.N. ConventionrelatingtostatusofRefugeeifthedisplacedpersonhascrossedan internationalborderandfallsunderoneoftherelevantinternationallegalinstruments, he is considered as refugee.Aforced migrant who left his or her home becauseofpoliticalpersecutionorviolencebutdidnotcrossaninternationalborder,iscommonlyconsideredtobethelesswelldefinedcategoryofinternallydisplaced person (IDP) and is subject to more tenuous international protection. Moreoverpersonsareoftendisplacedduetonaturalormenmadedisasters.Displacementcanalsooccurasaresultofslowonsetclimatechange,suchasdesertificationorsealevelrise.Apersonwhoisdisplacedduetoenvironmentalfactors whichnegativelyimpacthisorherlivelihoodisgenerallyknownasanenvironmental migrant. Such displacement can be cross-border in nature but is frequentlyinternal.Nospecificinternationallegalinstrumentappliestosuchindividuals.Foreignnationsoftenofferdisasterrelieftomitigatetheeffectsofsuch disasterdisplacement.BogumilTerminskidistinguishestwogeneralcategories of internal displacement i.e., (i) Displacement of risk (mostly conflict induced displacement, deportations and disaster-induced displacement) and (ii) Displacementofadaptation(associatedwithvoluntaryresettlement,development–induced displacement and environmentally – induced displacement). The UNHCR opposes the use of the term 'refugee' in reference to environmental migrantsasthistermhasastrictlegaldefinition.(RichardBlack)
Asuddenimpactsuchasanaturaldisasterorconflicttriggersthedisplacementof populations.Displacedpopulationsleavetheirhomesingroups,usuallyduetoa suddenimpactsuchasanearthquakeoraflood,erosionofriverbankthreator conflict. There is usually an intention to return home. It is mentionable that migrationanddisplacementareinterlinkedbutmustbedistinguished.Displaced populations–eitheracrossborderssuchasrefugeeinfluxes,orwithinacountry because of disasters or armed conflict usually need relief operations combined witheffortsaimingatcollectiveandlastingsolutions.Ontheotherhandmigrationusuallyinvolvesmoreindividualsocialassistance,legalprotectionandpersonalsupport.
Riverbankerosionisasignificantproblemworldwideandisassociatedwithland
loss and deposition of sediments along the river course .Land loss as a consequenceofriverbankerosionnotonlythreatenstheexistenceofinfrastructuresor agriculturallandsneartotheriverbankbutalsoposesthreattoaquatichabitsand causes sedimentation downstream due to the generation of fine-grained sediments(Darby&Thorne,1995).InIndia,mostofthehydrologicalchallengesare owedtothehighsedimentloadoftheriverswhichultimatelyresultsinriverbed aggradations,bankerosionandchannelwidening(Thakuretal.,2012).Besides riverbank erosion in the rivers of Brahmaputra, Barak and Ganga basin is also causedduetohighflooddischargeintheriver,bedslopeandcompositionofbed andbankmaterials.Thelandlostonceduetoriverbankerosioncannotbecompensatedbytheriverinelandmassthatisbuiltupbytheriveritselfinduecourse oftime.
Riverbank erosion is also a factor responsible for the displacement of people. Soilisremovednaturallybyoceancurrents,riverwater,icewindorlivingorganismsandiscallederosion.Thisdisplacementofsoil,mud,rockandotherparticleshasbeenoccurringforover450millionyears.Erosionisanaturalprocess andcanbehealthyfortheecosystembutoftentimesismadeworsebyhumanuse suchasdeforestation/removalofvegetation,overgrazing,unmanagedconstructionorbuildingofroads.Excessiveerosioncanproducetroublesuchasecosystemdamage,lossofsoilandreceivingwatersedimentation.Italsodisplacespeople'shabitats.So,theeffectsoferosionaresometimeslinkedtooverpopulation throughmigrationofpeoplefromoneplacetoanother UnliketheallIndiascenario,ofalltypesofnaturaldisasters,erosionbornehazardintheBrahmaputra valleyismuchmoreserious.Theerosionontheotherhandmakesthepeasants landless overnight. So, displacement is a serious problem in Assam. For economicdevelopmentpermanentsettlementofthepeopleisveryessential.Butdue to erosion, people have to displace/migrate even within a year or more.Therefore,theycan'tstartpermanentbusiness.Specially,agriculturesectorisseverely affected. Moreover, erosion leads to large scale migration of people from one areatodifferentareas.Inthiscontextthestudyoferosionanditsimpactishighly essential.
Theearthquakeof1897and1950haschangedthestructureofthelandofAssam. Duetohighrainfall,deforestation,shiftingcultivation,unplannedembankment andcaringofsiltationandfalldownriverbedandaccumulationthatdeclinethe capacityofholdingwaterwherecausefloodanderosion.Riverbankerosionis causedtodamageofcroplandandinfrastructureincludingroadsandbridgealso inhabitinglandofpeople.
Riverbankerosioncreatessocio-economicproblemsinAssam.Theriverbank erosion affects are social as well as economic. The river bank erosion also affectedinearningsourcesandcreatessomesocialproblemssuchashealtheducation,housingandwateretcofthepeople.Whichcreatesdirectlyeconomicand socialproblemlikedisplacement.
1.1.EffectsofRiverbankErosion: Effectsofriverbankerosionaremultifariousviz.social,economic,health,educationandsometimespolitical.Thefirstandforemostimpactissocial,i.e.homelessness due to land erosion which compels people to migrate (Tuhin K. Das, et.al,2014).Afterforcedmigrationtheysufferfromeconomiccrisis,namelyloss ofoccupationandlossofpropertyandtheyareattheriskofpovertyandsometimestheyinvolveincriminalactivities(Ikbal,2010).
Themaineffectsofriverbankerosioncanbedividedintothreebroadcategories. Theyare:
1.1.(i)Socialeffect:Thefirstandforemosteffectofriverbankerosionissocial, i.e., homelessness due to land erosion which compels people to migrate.After forced migration they suffer from identity crisis, poverty etc. Moreover due to riverbankerosionstructureofjointfamilyisdestroyed.
1.1.(ii)Economiceffect:Afterforcedmigrationpeoplesufferfromeconomic crisis,whichincludeslossofproductiveland,lossofoccupation.Moreoverthey sufferfromindebtedness,lowinvestmentetc.
1.1.(iii)Othereffects:Besidessocialandeconomiceffectstherearesomeother effectsofriverbankerosion.Duetolossofoccupationtheylackmoneytospend forpurposesotherthanessentialitemslikefoodandshelter,evenifthemedical and education facilities exist in their newly occupied places. Results are their poorhealth,sicknessandilliteracyoftheirchildren.So,theyareaffectedpsychologicallyalso.
Theabovearethemainsocio-economicimpactsoftherivererosion. RivererosionproblemofAssamcreateacutesocio-economicprobleminAssameconomy InAssam,recurringfloodsareassociatedwithsevereriverbankerosioncausing havoc to the affected people. Against this backdrop the present study is an attempttoanalyseseconomiceffectsofriverbanktheerosionuponthedisplaced peopleofMajuliSub-DivisionofJorhatDistrictofAssam.Therivererosiondamages lots of production every year Moreover loss live stocks and other roads embankmentbridgedestroyedbecausedisastrousfloodinAssamleadstoaccelerateerosion.
Studyoftheeconomiceffectsofdisplacementduetoriverbankerosionacquires significancebecauseriverbankerosionhaslongtermandsevererepercussions onhumanlife.Thevictimsarecompelledtodisplaceastheybecomedestitute. Ontheotherhand,thealteredflowofrivers(naturalormanmade)duetobankerosion also affects river ecology Human vulnerability is of greatest extending, wheresettlementsaredangerouslyclosetoerodingbanks.Thereforemappingof thespatialdistributionofvulnerabilityofthepeopleresidingalongtheriverbank is very much required to understand the severity of the problem (Kienberger et al 2009) Landscape degradation, environmental and socio-economic impactsareobservedindifferentcountriesatdifferentscalesduetoriverbank erosion.Butquantitativeinformationonsocio-economicconsequencesofriver bank erosion (viz., total human displacement, loss of occupation, loss of property,impactonhealthandeducation,etc.)forallthecases,howeversmallitmay be, is not available unlike other natural disasters. But this type of attempt is highlyneededtoquantifythehumanvulnerabilityduetoriverbankerosion,and inturntoformulateappropriatepublicpolicy Alsoacomparisonispossiblewith beforeandafterdisplacedofthepeople,i.e.,changingtheiroccupationpattern, livelihood process, standard of living etc. Most of the studies on Brahmaputra riverbankerosioninAssamhavebeenaimedatidentifyingfactorscausingerosion and assessment of eroded geographical area. It is mentionable that Brahmaputra bank erosion has wiped out a large area including human settlements, productive crop land and reserve forest area. However, little effort has beenmadetoquantifythelossduetothiserosionthoughitisoftenreportedthat Brahmaputra River bank erosion causes poverty, has a long term impact and there is no compensation mechanism (Talukdar, 2012).So an attempt has been madetostudyMajulioneofthebadlyerosioneffectedareaofAssam.Ifwegive attention in the study area then it proves the significance of the study from the magnitudeoftheerosion.IthasnoticedthatinMajulitilltheyear2001about78 revenue villages had been affected by severe erosion and accordingly hundred sq.k.m.areasuitableforagriculturallandandresidentialareahadsubmergedinto the Brahmaputra River; many of the villages had shifted to Darang District, Titabar and Jorhat circle ( Census Report 2001) The island's total area has reducedtoonly421.65sq.km.bytheyear2001(SharmaandPhukan,2003).
Thestudywillbebasedonfollowingobjectives:
(i) To examine the socio-economic changes of the displaced people from MajuliSub-Divisionduetodisplacementcausedbyriverbankerosion.
(ii). Toexaminetheeconomiclossofthedisplacedpeopleofthestudyarea.
ThestudyisbasedonthefollowingResearchQuestion:
(I). Whethertherehasbeenachangeinthetypeofworkofthedisplacedpeople?
Thestudywillbebasicallybasedonprimarydatacollectedfromthedisplaced peopleofMajuliSub-divisionwhowererehabilitatedbythegovernmentduring 1999to2006atdifferentpartsofJorhatandGolaghatdistrictsofAssam.From thesourceofSub-DivisionalDisasterManagementPlanMajuli,2014thereare foundtotal4453numbersofdisplacedfamilieswhichwererehabilitatedbythe
governmentatdifferentpartsofJorhatandGolaghatdistrictsofAssam.Thereare six numbers of Revenue circles in Jorhat District, namely Jorhat East, Jorhat West,Titabor,Marioni,MajuliandTeokRevenueCircles.Asperofficialrecords 4453 families of Majuli were rehabilitated in these Revenue Circles. And in Golaghat district there are also six numbers of Revenue Circles namely Golaghat,Bokakhat,Dergaon,Sarupather,MorongiandKhumtai.Forourstudy DergaonRevenueCircleisselectedpurposivelybecauseasperofficialrecords thisistheonlyRevenueCirclewherethepeoplefromMajuliwererehabilitated inGolaghatdistrictbythegovernment.Theprimarydatahasbeencollectedwith thehelpofScheduledQuestionnairesfromtheheadofthefamilies.KeyInformantInterviewwillalsobeadoptedwhereverrequired.KeyInformantInterview arequalitativein-depthinterviewswithresourcepersonsincludingcommunity leaders,professionalsorresidentswhohavefirst-handknowledgeabouttheconcernedissueAppropriatestatisticaltoolsareusedwherevernecessary Itisproposedtousepurposiverandomsamplingtechniqueintheselectionofthefamilies keeping in view that the SC, ST and General people are adequately represented.Itisagainproposedtocollect15%ofsamplesfromeachRevenueCircle in the study area.The details of the rehabilitated families of the study area and samplestobecollectedcanbeshowninthefollowingtable:
SL. No. StudyArea
TotalNo.of rehabilitated families Samplesize (15%of the families)
1 TitaborRevenueCircleinJorhat District 2524 379
2 JorhatWestRevenueCircle,Jorhat District 146 21
3 MarioniRevenueCircleinJorhat District 1326 199
4 JorhatEastRevenueCircleinJorhat District 101 15
5 TeokRevenuecircleinjorhat district 122 18
6 SaarAtiinMajuliRevenueCircle inJorhatDistrict 26 4
7 DergaonRevenueCircle,in GolaghatDistrict 106 16
8 BhokotChaporiin MajuliRevenueCircleinJorhat District
40 6
9 TatibariinMajuliRevenueCircle 62 9 Total 4453 667
Tosupplementtheprimarydatasecondarydatawillbeusedpublishedbydifferentgovernmentofficesaswellasrelevant,historicalreports,journalsetc.
Reviewofliteratureisoneoftheimportantpartsofresearchwhichhelpstoknow theconceptofthetopic,itstheoreticalframework,existingsituationandtherelevanceoftheresearchtopic.Italsohelpstouseappropriatemethodologyandto contextualizethefindings.Riverbank erosion is a common geomorphologic process of alluvial floodplain rivers.Itcorresponds tobankadjustment,bank trampling,navigations,changes inbedelevationand topography in reaction to modified flow conditions (stream power, bed load) or bank resistance, exceptionalfloodingandrisingintensityoftidalwaves(Lane,1955;Madej,et al.,1994; PieÂgay and Bravard, 1997; Chowdhury et al., 2007). InBangladesh,riverbankerosionisaregularphenomenonwhichislocatedinthedeltaof someoftheworld'slargestrivers-theGanges,theBrahmaputraandtheMeghna. Bankerosionandchannelshiftingof the untrained alluvial rivers of Bangladesh are big problems to the socio-economic and environmentalsectorof thecountry(Klassen,etal.,2002).
According to Mahbuba Kaniz KeYa and S.M. Rafael Harun (2007) Natural disasters (flood, riverbank erosion, tornados, earth quake etc.) create extreme stressful experiences on victim's life. Extreme stressors threaten societal wellbeingaswellasoverwhelmindividual'scopingabilitywithfamilyandcommunity Riverbank erosion severely challenges victims' basic values, shelter and securitythatproducesextremefeelingoflossandmakespeoplevulnerableand helpless. People always try to obtain, retain and protect that which they value. Lossofownland,assetsandsheltercallforlhchainoflossesi.e.residentialdisplacement,jobdisruption,destructionofcropsandpropertyetc.Thesestressors comeinmultipleshockwavesfora.longtime.Suddenattackofriverbank erosion without any warning creates excessive demands on the victims and the demandsforactionexceedthecapabilitiesforresponseinsuchacrisissituation ofresourcesthreatentheirsecurityofsurvival;theyfeellossofcontrolwhichhindertheircapacitytousepsychosocialresourceseffectivelyandencounterthecrisissuccessfully
Displacementisoneoftheseriousissueswhichalsocreateconflict.Inthiscontext,Gordenker(1990)outlinesmanytypesofconflictthatgiverisetoarefugee situation:internationalwar;internaldisturbances;deliberatechangeswithinthe social structure due to political transformation; and international political tension.
Floodandriverbankerosionaretwoofthemajorenvironmentaldisastersthatthe country experiences recurrently and an estimated one million people are displaced every year due to riverbank erosion in the country (Elahi and Rogge 1990). It is reported by Elahi and Rogge (1990) that while one million people weredisplacedbyfloodanderosioninBangladesh,itisnotlessthantenthousand people in Murshidabad alone. It is also recorded in the same article that 79,190 people were displaced during 1988 to 1994 in Murshidabad alone for floodandlanderosion.ThedisplacementatMaldaforthesamewasnotlagging behindinfactsandfigures(Rudra2003).Thisadversityisfurtherworsenedwhen the devastating flood and riverbank erosion together intensified the process of pauperizationinruralareasinBangladesh(Rahman,A1986;Karim1990;Islam 1999; Jahangir 1979). At this critical situation, the displaces and the victims fromnaturaldisastersfacemulti-dimensionalenvironmentalproblemsresulted fromfloodanderosion.Theyhavetoadapttothechangingconditionsofmany socio-political,economicandculturalstrategiesinordertosurviveinthefaceof theplethoraofproblems.Thefloodandriverbankerosiondisplacestrytogain controlovertheirenvironmentthroughtheirmulti-dimensionaladaptationstrategies.
Erosion,asitaffectsmananditsenvironment,isnaturalandasoldastheearth itself (OMAFRA Staff, 2003). It is seen as the gradual washing away of soil through the agents of denudation which include, wind, water and man (Abegunde,el al 2003). These denudating agents loose, wear away, dislodge, transportanddepositwearoffsoilparticlesandnutrientsinanotherlocation.
AccordingtoHussain,Monirul(2006)inaun-precedentedflashfloodinOctober2004nearly1,000peoplediedinGoalparadistrict.Thegovernmentprovided relieftosomeoftheseflood-affectedpeoplewhichwasfarfromadequate.The situationdemandsproperandscientificassessment,adequatereliefandrehabilitationmeasures.ItisnotonlythefloodthatpushedthepeopleofAssamintoan uncertainfuture;theriverbankerosiontoohasaffectedmillionsofpeople.Over theyears,environmentalinsecurityhasincreasedsubstantially Accordingtoan officialreport,theriverBrahmaputraeroded429,657hectaresofprimeagriculturalland.Roughly,7percentofthelandintheplainshasbeenerodedbetween 1951 and 2000. This has definitely displaced at least three million peasants. Today,theyconstitutethemostpauperisedcommunityinAssam'splains.Inthe absenceofproperresettlementandrehabilitationpolicy,mostofthemhaveexperiencedmultipledisplacements.Intheabsenceofaproperdatabase,itisdifficult to ascertain the number of development-induced IDPs in North-East India. In India,amongallEasternandNorth-easternstates,Assamfacesthemostsevere bruntofBrahmaputrabankerosion.Accordingtotherecordsofthelastcentury, theAssamvalleyportionofBrahmaputraRiveroccupiedaround4000km2inthe 1920s,whichisnowaround6000km2(Phukanetal.,2012).
AqualitativestudyinMandiaBlockofBarpetadistrictrevealedthatpeopleon theerodedlandmigratedtothenearestvillages,townsandeventosomereserve places of Assam due to Brahmaputra River erosion (Khan, 2012). In Mandia Blockagriculturewastheprimaryoccupationofthemajorityofthepeople.But due to bank erosion there was loss of agricultural land, which in turn has increasedthenumberoflandlesslabourers.Thepercentageoflandlesslabourers amongtheworkingclassinthestudyareawasnearly90percent,whereasitwas only16percentinBarpetadistrict,wherethisblockbelongs.Decreasingagricultural land due to erosion and at the same time increasing number of landless labourershadobviouslyanimpactontheirlivelihood.Thiswasobservedfroma growth in number of poverty stricken people in Mandia Block. The portion of populationbelowthepovertylineinthisblockwasmorethandoubleofthatin Barpetadistrict.
Inadditiontosoilproductivityloss,anotherkeyimpactfromsoilerosionisdirect damagetoprivateandpublicproperty Thisdamagemayincluderepairstofarm infrastructure,residentialandindustrialbuildingsandtransportationutilityand recreation networks. Rohomoria is an area which is severely affected by river borne erosion. It is located about 20 kms away from Dibrugarh town in the upstreamdirectionofthesouthbankoftheBrahmaputraRiver.Rohmoriafalls underChabuaRevenueCircleofDibrugarhDistrict.Theentireareasituatedto thenorthofRohmoriacomprisedseveralsmallsettlements,swampsanddense mixedjunglestill1996.TheDibrugarh-Rangagara-Tinsukia(DRT)Road,ahistorical highway passes through and links Rohmoria with both Dibrugarh and Tinsukia Townships by regular transport services. But the Brahmaputra River hadnotonlyerodedawayallthoseresourcesalongwiththeDRTroad,butalso has been eroding presently the villages around Rohmoria. The erosion of the Brahmaputra at Rohmoria has resulted in a 4-5 m. high vertical erosion scrap, which spans linearly at a stretch for about 9 k.m. (Sarma & Acharjee, 2012). Rohmoria area has the highest rate of bank erosion in the south bank of the Brahmaputra(Sarma&Phukan,2006).Intheaftermathofthegreatearthquake in1950,theBrahmaputrachannelbeltstartedinflatingintheDibru-Saikhoasegmentcausingrapidbanklinemigrationinboththenorthandthesouthbanks.By 1979, a significant portion of the Dibrugarh, Rongagorah, Tinsukia metalled
road,themainlinkthatusedtoconnectRohmoriawiththetwoimportanttownshipsofDibrugarhandTinsukia,wascutheavilyduetothiserosion(Lahiri,S. K.,Borghain,J.,2011).UnliketheallIndiascenario,ofalltypesofNaturaldisasters,erosionbornehazardintheBrahmaputravalleyismuchmoreserious.This isduetofactthatmorethan80%populationofthestateisassociateddirectlyor indirectly with the agrarian relationship. In floods, magnitude of ideas daily labourersossesmightbegreat,sometimesperennial,yettemporary.Manyofthe self-dependentpeasantsjustbecomelandlesslabourersovernightduetothemassiverateoferosion.Ahugenumberoffamilieshavebeendisplaced.Therehabilitationmeasuresareyettoreachmostofthedeservingfamilies.Formostofthe victims there remains no other option other than working as daily labourers in nearbyareas.Thefemaleresidentsoflocalvillages,whohadnopriorexperience ofworkingaslabourersintheteagardens,wereforcedtoovercomeallkindsof inhibitionsassociatedwiththeconventionalpracticesandaccepttheoption.One noteworthydevelopmentinthiserosionriddenareaisthatsomeoftheinhabitants searching desperately for alternative source of earning besides agriculture are running illegal saw mills based on the wooden logs coming down through BrahmaputrafromtheupstreampartofArunachalPradeshwheredeforestation continuestooccur Interestingly,thegovernmentincapableofcontrollingdeforestationbyillegalnexusseizethelogsandsellthroughauctiontobigmillowners (Borgohain.J.2011).
Majuli,a Sub-division of Jorhat district located in the state ofAssam severely affectedbyriverbankerosion.AtMajulitheProblemoffloodingisacutealong theriverchannelofBrahmaputratoo.Majuli,theworld'slargestinhabitedriver islandhasbeenshrinkinginsizeovertheyearsdueprimarilytothephenomenon ofriverbankerosionleavingonly421.65sq.kmoftheislandbytheyear2001rendering hundreds homeless especially during floods. Needless to mention, this acceleratedrateofshrinkinginthesizeoftheislandcannotbewithoutitsimpact on the society, economy, demography and culture.An important dimension of theproblemrelatestoredistributionofpeopleonaccountofthelossofvillages, agricultural land and other economic support base.Along with the problem of flooding the area is also associated with other flood induced hazards like river bankerosion,embankmentbreach,roadbreach;SandCastingetc.TheIslandhas beenshrinkinginsizeovertheyearsdueprimarilytothisphenomenonofbank erosion.Riverbankerosioncancausecompletelossoffarmandhomesteadland andleavethepoorinatotallyhelplessstatewithoutasourceofincomeandlivelihood,orevenahouse.Itdestroystheexistingmodesofproductionandwaysof life,affectskinshipandcommunityorganizationandnetworks,causesenvironmentalproblemsandimpoverishmentandthreatensculturalidentityofthepeople.Displacementduetorivererosioncontinuestocreateimpoverishedfamilies. People living in the marginal lands are severely affected and have to develop mechanismstocopewiththisreality Theyhowevercannotescapetheprospects ofdisplacementandrehabilitationwhenthesituationgoesbeyondtheircontrol. Forcedresettlementtendstobeassociatedwithincreasedsocio-culturalandpsychological stresses and higher morbidity and mortality rates. Population displacement therefore disrupts economic and socio-cultural structures. People whoaredisplacedundergotremendousstressastheyloseproductiveresources–land or otherwise in the adjustment process. Resettling the displaced poor and economicallydisadvantagedisnotalwaysaneasytask.Majuli,oneoftheinhabited fresh water river island in the world happens to be a major seat of rapid social, demographic, cultural and economic change due to flood induced river bank erosion which is taking place at an alarmingly increasing pace year after year Erosionislikelytosubmergetheriverislandinnext15–20years.Atstake isthegloriousheritageofAssameseculture(already29satrasvanishedoutof65 satras). Population is increasing inspite of exodus due to displacement and per capitacultivablelandholdingisdiminishingconsequentthreatonculture,socio –economyandecology Itisaproblemregionandisaregionperceivedashighly “vulnerable”.Theisland'stotalareahasreducedtoonly421.65sq.kmbytheyear 2001 (Sharma and Phukan, 2003). It has been noted that in Majuli till the year 2001about78revenuevillageshadbeenaffectedbysevereerosionandaccordinglyhundredsq.km.areasuitableforagriculturallandandresidentialareahad submerged into the Brahmaputra River; many of the villages had shifted to Darangdistrict,TitabarandJorhatcircle(CensusReport2001).Manyhistorical records reveal that Majuli , the hub of 'Vaishnavite' monasteries, suffered from several large floods that devasted the area causing extensive flood inundation andseverebankerosion.(Sarma&Phukan,2004).Geomorphologically,Majuli formsapartofthefloodplainsofBrahmaputrariverandtherebycontinuouslyfacingseriousproblemsoffloodhazard(duetotheinfluenceofSWmonsoon)and riverbankerosionwhichhasposedathreattoitsrichculturalheritageanditsexistence as well. (Kotoky et.al.2003). Different research works done at different timeperiodsshowthattheaverageannualrateoferosionhasbeenincreasingat analarmingrate.
After1950,floodanderosionproblemscreateapatheticconditionwhichhave changedthenaturalandhumanecologybyreducingtotalgeographicalarea.In this situation from 1969 to 2011 the like Bagharchuk, Lahakar, Boramari, Chinatoli, Gopalpur, Rawomora, Sakawpara, Auniati Bamungaon, Boralengi, Kartic Chapori, Dakhinpat, Kaibarta Gaon, Kamalpur, Pirna Kamalabari, JuginidharaKohagaon,AlimurMissing,DhuwparaandwholeAhatguriMouza werevanishedbyerosionandgovernmentsupportindifferentpartsofthestate accordingtotheirwillandeconomicstrength.Duetocontinuousfloodanderosionproblemsyearafteryear,thesituationhasbeenworsedaybyday Thegreat floodsof1998,2008and2012createdgreathavocinMajuliandthepeopleof
some villages like Salmora, Besamora, Chinatoli, Samoimari,Kaniajan, Botamari,KhoraHollaetc.losttheirlandpropertyincludinghousesalso.Lackof selffinancialstrengththeyhavenotbeenalsotoshifttheirsettlementtoabetter andsafeplaceinoroutsideMajuli.
In case of this we should tried to find out the pattern of resettlement to these affectedpeoplebuythegovernment.Inthisregardgivingsettlementfacilityto thefloodanderosionaffectedpeopleofMajuligovernmenthavebeentakinga significant role. From 1969 onwards the government of Assam and revenue departmenthavetakensomanystepstoresettlethedisplacedfamiliesinMajuli anddifferentplacesofthenearbydistricts.Duetotheirpooreconomiccondition oftheaffectedpeopletheyareunabletoresettlepermanentlywithoutthehelpof thegovernment.
FromthesourceofSub-divisionalDisasterManagementPlanMajuli,2014total numberof 4325 familiesgotresettlementpermanentindifferentplacesof outsideMajuliviz.,JorhatWestSide(146).JorhatEastSide(101),Titabar(2524), Morani(1326),Dergaon(106).Ontheotherhand128familiesgotpermanentsettlementinsideMajuliviz.Talibari(62),Bhakatchapori(40)andSarati(26).
During43yearsalongtimeperiod(i.e.,1969-2011)governmentgavepermanent settlement to 4453 families out of which 4325 families got settlement permanentlyoutsideMajuliandtherestinMajuliwhichwasasignificantactofgovernmentincaseofresettlementofpoorfloodaffectedpeople.
Butduetolackofsuitablesettlementareaandlackofpropergovernmentpolicies incaseofresettlementoferosionaffectedpeople,governmentandtherevenue departmentofMajuliunabletogavepermanentresettlementfacilityto5113families,whichtakeshelteronE&D,P.W.D.roadsandCharandChaporiesofthe Brahmaputra. (Circle Office, Kamalabari, Majuli). The economic codition of these people is so bad that they have been suffering from basicneeds to lack of publicinstitutionsandfacilitieslikehospitals,schools,postoffice,Transportationsystemetc.aswellasfairandfestival.Actuallythereisdegradationoftheir socio-economicconditionaswellasverythreattosurvivaloftheirnewgeneration as they deprive from the basic needs and rights.There is very long lasting effectoffloodanderosiononthesedisplacedpeople. Theirshiftingandsettlement is very temporary, because there is every possibility that the advancing river would very soon submerge their new localities and they need to shift anotherplaceashappenedincaseofSalmora,Besamora,Sumoimari,Ahatguri etc.Atpresentthereisnotenoughvacantlandinwhichlargenumberofpeople can settle. So, due to temporary settlement their economic conditions study is notrelevantbecauseoftheirtemporaryshiftingalleconomicbehaviouristemporary Henceourmainfocusistostudytheeconomiceffectsofthepermanent resettlementpeoplewhichweredisplacedduetoriverbankerosion.Anattempt ismadetocomparisonwithbeforeandafterdisplacedofthepeople.i.e.changingtheiroccupationpattern,livelihoodprocess,standardoflivingetc.
During the study following socio-economic and demographic characteristics havefoundtosee,whichdepictsthegenderoftherespondents,educationlevelof therespondents,typeoffamilyetc.
7.1GenderoftheRespondent: Table 7.1 summarise the gender of the respondent drawn from the study The tableshowsthatmostofthetotalrespondentsi.e.,93.4%aremaleswhiletherest 6.6%arefemales.Thissuggeststhatmostoftherespondentheadsinthestudy areaaremales.
Table7.1GenderoftheRespondent
Gender No.ofRespondent Percentage
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
7.2CasteoftheRespondent: Table7.2CasteoftheRespondent
Male 623 93.4 Female 44 6.6 Total 667 100.0 Caste Frequency Percentage ST 168 25.2 Sc 192 28.8 OBC 207 31.0 General 100 15.0 Total 667 100.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Table7.2revealsthecasteoftherespondent.Thetableshowsthat25.2%ofthe
respondents are ST, 28.8 % respondents are SC, 31.0 % of them are OBC and 15.0%oftherespondentsareGeneralcaste.
7.3.AgeandMaritalStatus: Table7.3.(i)AgeoftheRespondent
Age(Years) No.ofHouseholds Percentage
Below45 27 4.00 45-55 45 6.80 55-65 520 77.96 65-70 53 7.95 70+ 22 3.30 Total 667 100.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Amongtherespondentsnumberofrespondentsagedbelow45yearsisonly4% andnumberofrespondentsagedabove70yearsisonly3.3%.Highestnumberof respondents77.96%isbetween55-65years.Table7.3.(i)alsorevealsthatpersonsagedbetween45-55yearsand65-70yearsis6.8%and65-70years is7.95 %respectively
Status Frequency Percentage
Unmarried 3 0.4 Married 636 95.4 Widowed 28 4.2 Total 667 100.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Table7.3(ii)depictsthatamongtherespondentsonly0.4%areunmarried.Others95.4%aremarriedand4.2%arewidowedoftherespondents.
7.4.EducationalleveloftheRespondent: Table7.4revealsthatabout29.9%oftherespondentsareilliterateand70.1%of therespondentsareliterate.Only9.9%oftherespondentshavereceivededucationleveluptograduation.47.8%respondentsarenotabletogeteducationupto primary level.About 6.1 % of the respondents are able to complete primary to highschoolonly 6.3%havestudieduptomatriculationandundergraduatelevel.
EducationLevel Frequency Percentage Illiterate 199 29.9 BelowPrimary 319 47.8 PrimarytoHighSchool 41 6.1 Matriculate&Undergraduate 42 6.3 Graduate 66 9.9 Total 667 100.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
7.5PresentmonthlyIncomeoftheRespondents: Table7.5PresentmonthlyIncomeoftheRespondents(AverageinRs.)
Income(InRupees) Frequency Percentage 1000-5000 443 66.4 6000-10000 74 11.1 11000-15000 1 0.1 16000-20000 47 7.1 Morethan20000 102 15.3 Total 667 100.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Itisevidentinthetable7.5thatmorethanfiftypercenti.e.,66.4%oftherespondents earning between Rs.1000 to Rs.5000 per month. 11.1 % of them earned betweenRs.6000toRs.10,000,only0.1%ofthemearnedbetweenRs.11000to Rs.15000,7.1%earnedbetweenRs16000toRs.20000.Only15.3%ofthem earnedRs16,000toRs.20000.And15.3%ofthemearnedaboveRs.20,000per month as the time of this study This implies that most of the respondents displaced are due to river bank erosion low income earners as at the time of the study
Table7.6No.ofFamilymembersintheHousehold
TypeofToilet BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Sanitary 0 0 417 62.5
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
No.ofFamilymembers NoofHouseholds Percentage 4-5 472 70.8 6-7 176 26.4 8-9 19 2.8 total 667 100.0
Thedisplaceeswereforcedtoaccepttheirlossduetoriverbankerosiondisplacement.Theydidnothaveanyalternativewayoflossacceptanceastheyfailedto protecttheircultivableland,homesteadplotandothervaluablepropertiesfrom cataclysmoftheriverbankerosion.Thedisplacesacceptedtheirlossduetoerosion. Riverbank erosion displacement breakdown the family structure, socioeconomiccharacteristicsalsochanged.Howdisplacementchangespeoplelivelihood pattern as well as economic behaviour this picture will be clear from a comparativestudybetweenpastandpresentsituationoftherespondent.Dueto riverbankerosionvarioustypesofsocio-economicchangeshavebeenseen.The changesareasfollows:
8.1Typeoffamily:
Displacement changed the family type. The table 8.1 reveals that before displacement 88.8 % families were maintaining joint family and 11.25% were nuclearfamilies.Butafterdisplacement64.8%familiesadoptednuclearfamily andrestofthe35.2%familieshavemaintainedjointfamily
Table8.1Typeofrespondentfamily
FamilyType BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Nuclear 75 11.2 432 64.8 Joint 592 88.8 235 35.2 Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
8.2Typeofthehouse: Table 8.2 reveals that before displacement only 3.3 percent household were puccahouses,51.1percentrespondentshadsemipuccahousesandrest45.6% households'hadkutchahouses.Butafterdisplacementduetoriverbankerosion government provided rehabilitation to the affected families so the situation is totallyrevised.Afterdisplacement80.8%ofthehouseholdgettheopportunityto constructpuccahouses,16.2%ofthembuiltsemipuccahousesand3%ofthem builtkutchahouses.
Table8.2Typeofthehouse:
Type BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Kutcha 304 45.6 20 3.0 SemiPucca 341 51.1 108 16.2 Pucca 22 3.3 539 80.8
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
8.3.SourceofLighting:
Table8.3SourceofLighting
Sourceoflighting BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Electricity 20 3.0 664 99.6
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Kerosene 633 94.9 3 0.4 Others 14 2.1 0 0 Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Theabovetableshowsthatbeforedisplacement94.9%ofthehouseholdsused keroseneasasourceoflighting,3%ofthemusedelectricityand2.1%ofhouseholdsusedothersourcesaslightingsource.Ontheotherhandafterdisplacement thepicturehastotallychangedi.e.,99.6%ofthemuseelectricityasasourceof lightingandonly0.4%ofthemusekeroseneasasourceoflighting.
8.4ToiletFacilities:
Table8.4ToiletFacilities
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Pit 611 91.6 250 37.5 Open 56 8.4 0 0 Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Studyrevealsthatbeforedisplacementthepeopledidnothaveanysanitarytoiletsbutafterdisplacementthehouseholdsof62.5%ofthehouseholdsareusing sanitarytoilets.Fromtable8.4revealsthatbeforedisplacement91.6%ofhouseholdsusedpittoiletbutafterdisplacement37.5%ofhouseholdsareusingpittoilets.Moreoverithasbeenseenthatbeforedisplacement8.4%ofhouseholdsdid not have any toilet facilities, they used open spaces which was very dangerous forthepublichealthbutafterdisplacementopendefecationhasbeenfoundtobe nil.
8.5BathroomFacility: Table7.11revealsthatbeforedisplacementnohouseholdshad puccabathroom. Butafterdisplacement52.6%ofhouseholdgotthefacilitiestousepuccabathroom.Beforedisplacement36.7%ofhouseholdusedkutchabathroomwhereas afterdisplacementnoneofthemusedkutchabathroom.Againbeforedisplacement63.3%ofhouseholdsusedopenfortakingbathbutafterdisplacementnone ofthemuseopenplaceasbathplace.
Table7.11BathroomFacility
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Typeofbathroom BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Pucca 0 0 351 52.6 Kutcha 245 36.7 316 47.4 Open 422 63.3 0 0 Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
8.6No.oflivingroomsbeforeandafterdisplacement: Table8.6 No.oflivingroomsbeforeandafterdisplacement
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
No.ofLiving Rooms BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage 2 0 0 1 0.1 3 11 1.7 137 20.5 4 109 16.3 233 34.9 5 316 47.4 258 38.7 6 147 22.0 38 5.8 7 84 12.6 0 0 Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Table8.6revealsthatbeforedisplacement1.7%ofthehouseholdshadonlythree rooms,16.3%ofthemhadfourrooms,47.4%ofthemwerefiverooms,22%of them had six rooms and 12.6 % households were seven living rooms. On the otherhandafterdisplacement0.1%householdarrangedtwolivingrooms.20.5 %wereabletoarrangethreelivingrooms.Whereas34.9%ofhouseholdswere able to arranged four numbers of living rooms. Again 38.7 % households arrangedfivenumbersoflivingrooms.Only5.8%ofthemwereabletoarrange sixnumbersoflivingrooms.
8.7Numberofbedsusedbeforeandafterdisplacement: Study reveals (table 8.7) that before displacement more than fifty percent of households(51.3%)used2to4numberofbeds.21%ofthehouseholdused4to6 number of beds, 27.6 % of household had 6 to 8 number of beds used. On the other hand after displacement 57.6 % households arranged 2 to 4 numbers of beds, 21.3 % household arranged 4 to 6 number of beds, 19.1 % households arranged6to8numberofbedsandonly2%ofthemarranged8to10numberof beds.
Table8.7Numberofbedsusedbeforeandafterdisplacement
Numberofbeds BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
2-4 342 51.3 384 57.6
4-6 141 21 142 21.3
6-8 184 27.6 128 19.1
8-10 0 0 13 2.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
8.8SourceofDrinkingWater:
Table8.8revealsthat0.9%ofthehouseholdsusedcommonwatertap,1.7%of themusedcommontubewell,6.5%usedseparatetubewell,1.6%ofthehouseholdsusedcommonwell,4%usedseparatewelland85.3%ofthemusedpond/ riveretc.asasourceofdrinkingwaterbeforedisplacement.Ontheotherhand afterdisplacement2.1%areusingcommonwatertap,4.5%areusingseparate watertap,27.2% ofthehouseholdsareusingcommontubewell,53.2%ofthem areusingseparatetubewell,6.8%ofthemareusingcommonwelland6.2%of thehouseholdsareusingseparatewell.Itismentionablethatafterdisplacement noneofthehouseholdsareusingponds/riveretc.asasourceofdrinkingwater
Table8.8SourceofDrinkingWater
Sourceof drinkingwater
BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
CommonWatertap 6 0.9 14 2.1
SeparateWatertap 0 0 30 4.5
commonTubewell 11 1.7 182 27.2
SeparateTubewell 43 6.5 355 53.2
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
commonWell 11 1.6 45 6.8 SeparateWell 27 4.0 41 6.2 Pond/riveretc. 569 85.3 0 0 Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
8.9SourceofFuel:
Table 8.9 reveals that before displacement all the sample households (100%) usedfirewoodasasourceoffuelforcookingpurposes.Butafterdisplacement only1.3%ofthemareusingfirewoodassourceoffuelforcooking. Thetable shows that 7.6 % of the households use kerosene, 0.1 % use coal, 78.8 % of householdsuseLPGand12.2%ofthehouseholdsuseothersourcesoffuellike heater,biogasetc.
Table8.9SourceofFuel
SourceofFuelUsed BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
FireWood 667 100.0 9 1.3 Kerosene 0 0 51 7.6 Coal 0 0 1 0.1 LPG 0 0 525 78.8
Other(heater/Biogasetc.) 0 0 81 12.2
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
8.10Homesteadlandused: Thesevereimpactoftheriverbankerosionisthelossofhomesteadsthatmakes thepopulationmorevulnerabletoliveadecentlife.Whenerosionstrikes,people havenooptiontoleavebehindexceptbearingthelosses.Theyneverchangelocation of their homestead before the erosion takes place.The main reason behind suchbehaviouristhatthayhavelittleearningsthatneverallowthemtoreplace theirhomesteadsbeforeitistotallycollapsed.Inourstudywefoundthat(table 8.10)beforedisplacement31.6%ofhouseholdshadused1bighaashomestead land,51.9%used2bighasand16.9%used3bighaslandashomesteadland.On theotherhandafterdisplacement55%ofhouseholdsgotonly1Katha(1/5bigha) oflandashomestead,6.6%ofhouseholdget2kathaland,17.4%ofhousehold got3kathalandand21%ofhouseholdsgottouse1bighaoflandashomestead.
Table8.10Homesteadlandused
Sizeofland BeforeDisplacement Frequency Percentage
1Bigha 211 31.6
2Bigha 346 51.9
3Bigha 110 16.9 Total 667 100.0
Sizeofland AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage
1Katha 367 55.0
2Katha 44 6.6
3Katha 116 17.4
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
1Bigha 140 21.0 Total 667 100.0
8.11PattalandbeforeandAfterDisplacement: Table 7.19 reveals that before displacement 63.8 % of households had 5 to 10 bighasofpattaland,25%ofthemhad10to15bighasofpattaland,8.4%ofthem had15to20bighasofpattalandand2.8%ofhouseholdhad20to25bighasof pattaland.Ontheotherhandduetodisplacementcausedbyriverbankerosion thesefamilieshavelosttheirentirelandasset.Theygotonlythatportionofland assetwhich
Table8.11PattalandBeforeandAfterDisplacement
Sizeofland BeforeDisplacement Frequency Percentage
5-10Bighas 425 63.8 10-15Bigha 167 25.0 15-20 Bighas 56 8.4 20-25Bighas 19 2.8 Total 667 100.0
Sizeofland AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage
1Katha 173 55.0
2Katha 81 12.1
3Katha 119 17.8
4katha 12 1.8 3Bighas 6 0.9 4Bighas 80 12.0 5Bighas 196 29.4 Total 667 100.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018 wasprovidedbythegovernmentatthetimeofrehabilitation.25.9%ofthemgot only1kathaofpattaland,12.1%ofthemgot2kathaofpattaland,17.8%got3 katha of patta land,1.8 % of household got 4 katha of patta land. On the other hand0.9%ofthemgot3bighasofpattaland.12%ofthemgot4bighasofpatta landwhereasanother29.4%householdgot5bighasofpattaland.Fromthispicturewehaveseenthatduetodisplacementcausedbyriverbankerosionthepeoplelosstheirentirepattaland.
8.12Non-pattalandBeforeandAfterDisplacement: Table8.12Non-pattalandBeforeandAfterDisplacement
Sizeofland BeforeDisplacement Frequency Percentage
Nil 6 0.9 1-5Bighas 293 43.9 6-10Bighas 368 55.2
Total 667 100.0
Sizeofland AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Nil 667 100 Total 667 100.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018 Studyrevealsthat0.9%ofhouseholddidnothaveanyamountofnonpattaland. 43.9%ofthemhad1to5bighasofnon-pattaland,55.2%ofhouseholdenjoyed
6to10bighasofnon-pattalandbeforedisplacement.Ontheotherhandafterdisplacementtheygotnothingintheformofnon-pattaland.
8.13CultivablelandbeforeandafterDisplacement:
Table8.13CultivablelandbeforeandafterDisplacement
Cultivableland (Bighas)
BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
None 0 0 282 42.3
1-5 142 21.3 385 57.7 6-10 304 45.6 0 0 11-15 171 25.6 0 0 15-20 50 7.5 0 0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Table 8.13 depicts that before displacement every households had cultivavle land.21.3%ofthehouseholdshad1to5bighasofcultivableland.45.6%had6 to10bighas,25.6%had11to15bighasofcultivableland.Ontheotherhanddue toriverbankerosionpeoplelosttheirentirelandasset.So42.8%oftherespondenthouseholdhavenotbeenabletoarrangecultivableland.But57.7%ofthem got1to5bighasofland.Majorityofthemgot1bighaoflandwhichareefficient forcultivable.
8.14PlantationareabeforeandafterDisplacement:
Table8.14depictsthatbeforedisplacementonly2.5%oftherespondenthouseholddidnothaveanyplantationarea.30.6%oftherespondenthouseholdhad1 bigha of plantation area, 29.1 % of them had 2 bighas, 11.1 % of them had 3 bighas,5.5%had4bighas,6.5%ofthemhad5bighas,8.1%had6bighasand 6.6%ofthemhad8bighasofplantationareas.Ontheotherhandafterdisplacementnoneoftherespondenthouseholdshaveanyplantationarea.
Table8.14PlantationareabeforeandafterDisplacement
PlantaionArea
BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Nil 17 2.5 667 100.0
1Bigha 204 30.6 0 0
2Bigha 194 19.1 0 0
3bigha 74 11.1 0 0
4Bigha 37 5.5 0 0
5Bigha 43 6.5 0 0
6Bigha 54 8.1 0 0
7Bigha 0 0 0 0
8Bigha 44 6.6 0 0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
8.15 Plantation area of Kesseruplants, Mulberry and Someplants area beforeandafterDisplacement: Table8.15PlantationofKesseruplants,MulberryplantsandSomeplants area
Type Area BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Kesseruplants Nil 633 94.9 667 100.0
1-4 Bighas 34 5.1 0 0
Total 667 100.0 667 667
Mulberry Nil 634 95.1 667 100.0
1-4 Bighas 33 4.9 0 0
Total 667 100.0 667 667
SomePlants Nil 635 95.2 667 100.0
1-4 Bighas 32 4.8 0 0 Total 667 100.0 667 667
Source:FieldSurvey,2018 Study reveals that (table 8.15) before displacement 5.1 % of the respondent householdshadkesseruplants,4.9%ofthemhadmulberryplantationand4.8%
of the households had someplants about 1 to 4 bighas. But after displacement none of them have any kesseruplants, mulberry plants, and someplants. This impliesthatbeforedisplacementsomepeopleengagedwithsericulture.Butafter displacementtheyhaveboundtoshifttheirlivelihoodtoanothersector
8.16Numberofpondsbeforeandafterdisplacement: From table 8.16 we have seen that before displacement 26.7 % of the sample householdsdidnothaveanypondbut73.3%ofthemhadonepondeach. Onthe otherhandafterdisplacementnoneofthefamiliesarehavingponds.
Table8.16Numberofpondsbeforeandafterdisplacement
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
No.ofPonds BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage None 178 26.7 667 100.0 1 489 73.3 0 0 Total 667 100. 667 100.0
8.17NumberofCattleofthefamilies: Table8.17NumberofCattleofthefamilies
Numberof Cattle BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
None 4 0.6 311 46.6 1-5 281 42.1 307 46.0 5-10 147 22.0 49 7.4 10-15 17 2.6 0 0 15-20 19 2.9 0 0 Morethan20 199 29.8 0 0 Total 667 100. 667 100.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
8.18NumberofMilchCattleofthefamilies: Table8.18NumberofMilchCattleofthefamilies.
Numberof MilchCattle
BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
None 52 7.8 150 22.3 1-5 219 32.8 449 67.3 5-10 100 15.0 68 10.2 10-15 34 5.1 0 0 15-20 8 1.2 0 0
Morethan20 254 38.1 0 0
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Table8.18showsthatbeforedisplacement7.8%oftherespondenthouseholds didnothaveanynumberofMilchcattle.32.8%ofthemhad1-5numberofmilch cattle,15%had5-10numbersofmitchcattle,5.1%had10-15numbersofmilch cattle,1.2%ofthemhad15-20numbersofmilchcattleand38.1%oftherespondent households had more than 20 numbers of milch cattle. On the other hand afterdisplacement22.5%oftherespondentfamiliesdonothaveanymilchcattle,67.3%ofthemhave1-5numbersofmilchcattleand10.2%ofthemhave510numbersofmilchcattle.
8.19Numberofpigs: Table8.19revealsthatbeforedisplacement79.2%oftherespondenthouseholds didnothaveanypig.Only1%had10to15numberofpigsand1.5%ofthemhad morethan15numberofpigs.Butafterdisplacement81.3%ofthemdidnothave anypigs.16.8%ofthemhave1to5numberofpigs,1.5%ofthemhave5to10 numbersand0.4%oftherespondentfamilieshave10to15numberofpigs.
NumbersofPigs BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
None 528 79.2 542 81.3
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
8.20Numberofbuffaloes: Table8.20Numberofbuffaloes
1-5 122 18.3 112 16.8 5-10 0 0 10 1.5 10-15 7 1.0 3 0.4 Morethan15 10 1.5 0 0
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Numbers BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
None 141 21.1 663 99.4 1-5 408 61.2 4 0.6 5-10 90 13.5 0 0 10-15 28 4.2 0 0
Table8.20showsthatbeforedisplacement21.1%oftherespondenthouseholds didnothavebuffaloes.61.2%ofthemhad1to5numbersofbuffaloes,13.5%of themhad5to10numbersand4.2%ofthemhad10to15numbersofbuffaloes. Butafterdisplacement99.4%oftherespondenthouseholdsdidnothavebuffaloesandonly0.6%ofthehouseholdshave1to5numbersofbuffaloes.
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
8.21NumberofPoultry: Table8.21NumberofPoultry
worthRs.163.8lakh.Again36householdslost14bighasofpattalandworthRs. 907.2lakh,24numbersofhoseholdslost15bighasoflandasworthRs.648lakh, 7respondenthouseholdslost16bighasoflandworthRs.201.6lakh,1household lost 17 bighas of land worth Rs. 30.6 lakh , 3 numbers of households lost 18 bighasofpattalandworthRs.97.2lakh. Then45householdslost20bighasof patta land as worth Rs. 1620 lakh, 19 numbers of household lost 25 bighas of patta land worth Rs. 855 lakh. By this way 667 sample households lost a sum totalofRs.13,357.4lakhamount.
Table9.2EconomiclossduetoPattalanderosion
Numbers BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
None 17 2.6 57 8.6
SizeofPatta land No.of Households PerBighaMoney Value(Rs.1.8Lakh) TotalMoney Value(InLakh)
5Bigha 47 8 423.0
6Bigha 5 10.8 54.0
8Bigha 138 14.4 1987.2
10Bigha 235 18 4230.0
11Bigha 11 19.8 217.8
12Bigha 89 21.6 1922.40
13Bigha 7 23.4 163.8
14Bigha 36 25.2 907.2
15Bigha 24 27 648.0
16Bigha 7 28.8 201.6
Source:FieldSurvey,2018(DataSource,SDCOfficeKamalabari)
17Bigha 1 30.6 30.6
18Bigha 3 32.4 97.2 20Bigha 45 36 1620.0 25Bigha 19 45 855.0 Total 667 - 13357.0
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
1-5 32 4.8 336 50.4 5-10 106 15.9 135 20.2 10-15 5 0.7 64 9.6 15-20 8 1.2 74 11.1 Morethan20 499 74.8 0 0
9.3EconomiclossduetoNon-pattalanderosion: Table9.3depictsthat6householdshavenotlostanykindofnon-pattaland.293 householdslost5bighasofnon-pattalandworthRs.1465lakh.Inthesameway 75householdslost6bighasofnon-pattalandasworthRs450lakh,176householdslost7bighasofnonpattalandasworthRs.525lakh,91numbersofhouseholdlost8bighasofnon-pattalandworthRs.728lakhand26householdslost10 bighas of non-patta land worth Rs.260 lakh. By this way total sample of 667 householdslostasumtotalofRs.3428lakhamount.
Table9.3EconomiclossduetoNon-pattalanderosion
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Fromtable8.21wehaveseenthatbeforedisplacementonly2.6%oftherespondenthouseholdsdidnothave anypoultry 4.8%ofthemhad1to5numberso, 15.9%had5to10numbersofpoultry 0.7%and1.2%oftherespondenthouseholds had 10 to 15 numbers and 15 to 20 numbers of poultry respectively It is mentionablethat74.8%ofthehouseholdshadmorethan20numbersofpoultry Ontheotherhandafterdisplacement9.6%didnothavenotanypoultry,50.4% ofthemhave1to5numbersofpoultry,and20.2%ofthehouseholdshave5to10 numberofpoultry 9.6%and11.1%ofthehouseholds'have10to15numbers and15to20numberofpoultryrespectively
Duetoriverbankerosionwehaveseenthefollowingtypeofeconomiclossofthe respondenthouseholds:
9.1Economiclossduetohomesteadlanderosion: Inourstudythetotalsamplehouseholdsare667. Thetable9.1revealstheeconomiclossduetoerosionofhomesteadland.211numbersofthehouseholdslost 1 bigha of homestead land worth Rs. 527.5 lakh. 346 families lost 2 bighas of homestead land worth Rs 1730 lakh. And 110 respondent households lost 3 bighasofhomesteadlandworthRs.825lakh.TotaleconomiclossduetohomesteadlanderosionisworthRs.3082.5lakh.
Source:FieldSurvey,2018(DataSource,SDCOfficeKamalabari)
Sizeoflandlost No.of Household PerbighaMoney Value(Rs.2.5Lakh)
9.2EconomiclossduetoPattalanderosion:
TotalMoneyValue (InLakh)
1bigha 211 2.5 527.5
2bigha 346 5 1730.0
3bigha 110 7.5 825.0
Total 667 - 3082.5
TheTable9.2revealsthat47householdslost5bighasofpattalandworthRs.423 lakh.5numberofhouseholdslost6bighasoflandworthRs54lakh.Again138 numbersofhouseholdslost8bighasofpattalandasworthRs.1987.2lakh,235 householdslost10bighasofpattalandworthRs.4230lakh.Bythesameway11 households lost 11 bighas of land worth Rs. 217.8 lakh, 89 households lost 12 bighasofpattalandworthRs.1922.4lakh,7householdslost13bighasofland
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Non-pattaLand No.of Households PerBighaMoney Value(Rs.1Lakh) Totalmoney value(InLakh) Nil 6 -5 293 5 1465 6 75 6 450 7 176 7 525 8 91 8 728 10 26 10 260 Total 667 - 3428
9.4EconomiclossduetoerosionofCultivableland. Table9.4depictsthat5respondentfamilieslost3bighasofcultivablelandRs. 1.8lakhofmoneyvalueasperbighaasumofworthRs.27lakh.96households lost4bighasofcultivablelandworthRs.691.2lakh,41householdslost 5bighas ofcultivablelandworthRs.369lakh,27householdslost6bighasofcultivable land which tends to lead a loss of worth Rs. 291.6 lakh of money value. In the sameway84householdslost7bighasofcultivablelandworthRs.1058.4lakhof moneyvalue,193respondenthouseholdsloss8bighasofcultivable.
Table.9.4EconomiclossduetoerosionofCultivableland.
CultivableLand No.of Household PerBighamoney Value(Rs.1.8) Totalmoney Value(InLakh)
3Bigha 5 5.4 27.0 4Bigha 96 7.2 691.2 5 Bigha 41 9 369.0 6Bigha 27 10.8 291.6
7Bigha 84 12.6 1058.4
8Bigha 193 14.4 2779.2
13Bigha 58 23.4 1357.2
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
14Bigha 9 25.2 226.8
15Bigha 104 27 2808.0
sionofKesseruplantsarea.
Table9.6(B)EconomicLossduetoerosionofMulberryPlantsArea
Area No.of Household PerBighaMoneyValue (Rs.2.5Lakh) TotalMoneyValue (InLakh)
Source:FieldSurvey,2018,(DataSource,SDCOfficeKamalabari)
16Bigha 31 28.8 892.8
18Bigha 19 32.4 615.6
Total 667 - 11116.8
land worth Rs. 2779.2 lakh of money value, 58 respondent households lost 13 bighasofcultivableland worthRs.1357.2lakh,9respondenthouseholdslost14 bighasofcultivablelandworthRs.226.8lakh.In thesameway104households lost 15 bighas of cultivable land worth Rs. 2808 lakh,31 households lost 16 bighasofcultivablelandworthRs.892.8lakhand19householdslost18bighas ofcultivablelandworthRs.615.6lakhofmoneyvalue.Inthiswaythesample householdslostRs.11,116.8lakhduetolossofcultivableland.
9.5EconomiclossduetoerosionofPlantationArea: Table9.5EconomiclostduetoerosionofPlantationArea
Nil 634 0 0 1 2 2.5 5.0 2 15 5 75.0 3 11 7.5 82.5 4 5 10 50.0 Total 667 - 212.5
Table9.6(B)revealsthat634numbersoftherespondenthouseholddidnothave anyMulberryplantsareapriortodisplacement..2householdshadlost1bighaof MulberryplantsareaworthRs5lakh.15householdslost2bighasofMulberry plants worth Rs. 75 lakh, 11 household lost 3 bighas of mulberry plants area worthRs.82.5lakhand5respondenthouseholdlost4bighasofMulberryplants area worth Rs. 50 lakh. In this way the 33 respondent households lost a sum worthRs.212.5lakhduetoerosionofMulberryplantsarea.
Table9.6(C)EconomicLossduetoerosionofSomeplantsArea
Source:FieldSurvey,2018(DataSource,SDCOfficeKamalabari)
PlantationArea No.of Households PerbighaMoney Value(Rs.2Lakh) TotalMoney Value(InLakh) Nil 7 0 0 1 204 2 408 2 194 4 776 3 74 6 444 4 37 8 296 5 43 10 430 6 54 12 648 8 44 16 704 Total 667 - 3706
Table9.5depictsthat7householdsdidnothave anyplantationareapriortodisplacement 204 households lost 1 bigha of plantation area including bamboo treesworthRs.408lakh,194householdslost2bighasofplantationareaworth Rs.776 lakh. In the same way 74 households lost 3 bighas of plantation area worthRs444lakh,37householdslost4bighasofplantationareaworthRs.296 lakh, 43 households lost 5 bighas of plantation area as worth Rs.430 lakh, 54 householdslost6bighasofplantationareaworthRs.648lakhand44respondent householdslost8bighasofplatationareasworthRs.704lakh.Duetoerosionof plantation area 667 respondent households lost a sum total of worth Rs. 3706 lakh.
9.6EconomiclossduetoerosionofPlantationAreaofKesseruplants,MulberryplantsandSomeplants. Kesseruplants, mulberry and someplants have high economic value because becausefromthesepeoplecreateEndi,PatandMugaclotheswhichhavelocalas wellasforeigndemand.DuetoerosionMajulilostalotsofKesseruplants,mulberryandSomeplantsareawhichhavehigheconomicvalueinthefieldofSericulture.
Table9.6(A)EconomicLossduetoerosionofKesseruPlantsArea
Source:FieldSurvey,2018,(DataSource,SDCOfficeKamalabari)
Area No.of Household PerBighaMoneyValue (Rs.3Lakh) TotalMoneyValue (InLakh) Nil 635 0 0 1 3 3 9 2 14 6 84 3 8 9 72 4 7 12 84
Total 667 - 249
Table9.6(C)revealsthat635numbersoftherespondenthouseholddidnothave any Someplants area prior to displacement. 3 households lost 1 bigha of SomeplantsareaworthRs9lakh.14householdslost2bighasofSomeplantsarea worth Rs.84 lakh, 8 households lost 3 bighas of Someplants area worth Rs.72 lakh and 7 numbers of respondent household lost 4 bighas of Someplants area worth Rs. 84 lakh. In this way the 32 respondent households lost a sum worth Rs.249lakhduetoerosionofSomeplantsarea.
9.7EconomiclossduetoerosionofPonds: Table9.7EconomiclossduetoerosionofPonds
Source:FieldSurvey,2018,(DataSource,SDCOfficeKamalabari)
No.ofPonds No.of Household PerPondMoneyValue (Rs.1.5Lakh) TotalMoney Value(inLakh)
Table9.7depictsthatduetolossofpond489respondenthouseholdslostasum worthRs.733.5lakh.Only178respondenthouseholdslostnothingbecausethey didnothavepondspriortodisplacement.
None 178 0 0 1 489 1.5 733.5 Total 667 - 733.5
10.TYPEOFWORKOFTHERESPONDENTBEFOREANDAFTERDISPLACEMENT: Table10.1TypeofworkoftheRespondent
Area No.of Household PerBighaMoneyValue (Rs.2Lakh)
Source:FieldSurvey,2018(DataSource,SDCOfficeKamalabari)
TotalMoneyValue (InLakh) Nil 633 0 0 1 2 2 4 2 21 4 84 3 8 6 48 4 3 8 24 Total 667 - 160
Table 9 6(A) reveals that 633 respondent households did not have any Kesseruplants area prior to displacement. Only 2 households had 1 bigha of Kesseruplantsarea.Duetoerosionofthisareathehouseholdslostasumofworth Rs.4lakh.21respondenthouseholdslost2bighasofKesseruplantsareaworth Rs. 84 lakh and 8 households lost 3 bighas of Kesseruplants area worth Rs.48 lakhand3respondenthouseholdslost4bighasofKesseruplantsareaworthRs. 24lakh.Inthiswaythe34householdslostasumofworthRs.160lakhduetoero-
Typeofwork BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Agriculture 280 42.7 39 5.8
WageLabourer 37 5.5 348 52.2 Pottery 253 37.9 0 0 Weaving 28 4.2 6 0.9 Horticulture 9 1.3 0 0
Fishing 55 8.2 1 0.1
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Carpenter 0 0 68 10.2 Service 0 0 109 16.3 Business 0 0 32 4.8
Unemployed 0 0 28 4.2
MakingofBoat 0 0 10 1.5
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Studyrevealsthatduetodisplacementcausedbyriverbankerosionmajoreffects are seenintheoccupationofthedisplacedpeople.Theywereboundtochange their type of work. Table 10.1 reveals that before displacement 42.7 % of the households had agriculture as a main occupation but after displacement it is reducedto5.8%.Again5.5%oftherespondentswereengagedaswagelabourers as a main occupation but after displacement 52.2 % of the respondents workedaswagelabourersastheirmainoccupation.Anotherpictureisseenthat beforedisplacement37.9%oftherespondenthouseholdtookpotteryasthemain occupationalsourcebutafterdisplacementnoneofthemhasgottheopportunity totakepotteryastheirtypeofworksource.Beforedisplacement4.2%ofthem took weaving as an occupation but after displacement it is reduced to only 0.9 %.Againbeforedisplacement1.3%ofthehouseholds'mainoccupationwashorticulturebutafterdisplacementnoneofthemhastakenhorticultureasanoccupationalsource.8.2%oftherespondenthouseholds'mainoccupationwasfishing before displacement but after displacement it reduced to only 0.1 %.Study reveals that many people, after displacement engaged them in carpentry (10.2 %),business(4.8%),service(16.3%),andboatmaking(1.5%).Thosewhowere engagedinserviceswereemployedassecuritypersons,privatesectoremployees,soldiersandteachers(ingovernmentandprivateinstitutions).Unfortunately 4.2%ofthemwereunemployed..
10.2 Type of work of the Respondents Parents before and after Displacement: Table10.2TypeofworkoftheRespondentsParentsbeforeandafterDisplacement
ture but after displacement it is reduced to 5.8 %. On the other hand after displacement 52.2 % of the respondent worked as wage labourers as their main nature of work. Due to displacement occupational diversification is seen. Here our study we have seen that due to displacement government intervention was veryurgent.Hencegovernmentresettledandrehabilitatedthedisplacedpeople. After displacement the housing conditions and livelihood pattern of the displaced people have changed. By this way we found the answer of the first researchquestionthattherehasbeenachangeinthetypeofworkofthedisplaced peopleofthestudyarea.
FromtheaboveanalysiswecanconcludethattherehasbeenasubstantialsocioeconomicchangeinthelifeofthedisplacedpeoplefromMajuli.Theeconomic lossincurredbythedisplacedpeopleismanifestedintermsofthemoneyvalue lostinforgoinghomesteadland,plantationarea,cultivableland,pottaland,nonpotta land,pods, plantation area of Kesseru plants, Mulberry plants and Some plants.
I. AlbertA.Abegunde,SamsonA.Adeyinka,PeterO.Olawuni,and Olufunmilayo A. Oluodo: “An Assessment of the Socio Economic Impacts of Soil Erosion in South-EasternNigeria”,ShapingtheChange,XXIIIFIGCongressMunich,Germany,October8-13,2006
II. Black,R.:Refugeesandenvironmentalchange:globalissues.Unpublishedreport, DepartmentofGeography,King'sCollegeLondon1993
III. Borgohain. J, (2012): “Erosion in Rohmoria: Emerging Conflicts and Related Issues” waterconflictforum org/ /Juli Borgohain-Odisha-Case-Studyfinal26122011.pdf-24Dec.2011
IV Elahi,K.M.andJohnR.Rogge1990RiverbankErosion,FloodandPopulationDisplacement in Bangladesh: A Report on the Riverbank Erosion Impact Study Dhaka:RiverbankErosion ImpactStudy,JahangirnagarUniversity
V Hussain, Monirul: Internally Displaced Persons in India’s North-East: Economic andPoliticalWeekly,Vol.41,No5,(Feb.4-10,2006)Pp.391-393
VI. Islam,Md.ZulfiquarAli:1999a“Socio-economicLossoftheRiverbankErosion Displacees in Riverine Bangladesh: A Case of Precarious Habital”, A papersubmittedforpublicationintheforthcomingissueofJournaloftheInstitute ofBangladesh(Bangladesh),Vol.XXIII,2000.
Typeofwork BeforeDisplacement AfterDisplacement
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
VII. Islam,Md.ZulfiquarAli:1999a“Socio-economicLossoftheRiverbankErosion Displacees in Riverine Bangladesh: A Case of Precarious Habital”, A papersubmittedforpublicationintheforthcomingissueofJournaloftheInstitute ofBangladesh(Bangladesh),Vol.XXIII,2000.
Source:FieldSurvey,2018
Agriculture 310 46.5 0 0 WageLabourer 115 17.2 467 70.0 Carpenter 17 2.6 140 21.0 Pottery 180 27.0 18 2.7 Weaving 19 2.8 28 4.2 Horticulture 6 0.9 0 0 Fishing 20 3.0 1 0.1 Service 0 0 5 0.7 Business 0 0 8 1.2
VIII. Jahangir,B.K.1979Differentiation,PolarizationandContgrontationinRuralBangladesh,Dhaka:CentreforSocialStudies.
IX. Karim,A.H.M.Zehadul1990ThePatternofRuralLeadershipisanAgrarianSociety:ACase Study of the Changing Power Structure in Bangladesh. New Delhi: NorthernBookCentre.
X. Klassen, G.J., Douben, K.J. and Waal, M.V.D., (2002), Novel approaches in riverengineering,InBousmarandZech(eds),TheRiverFlow,pp27-43.
XI. Kotoky P., Bezbaruah, D., Baruah,J. & Sarma, J.N.(2003): Erosion activity on Majuli-thelargestriverislandoftheworld.CurrentScience,84,929-932.
XII. Lahiri,S.K.,andBorgohain.J.:“Rohmoria’sChallenges:NaturalDisaster,popularProtestsandStateApathy”,Economic&PloiticalWeekly,January8,2011,VOL XLVINo.2,pp31-35
Total 667 100.0 667 100.0
Table 10.2 reveals that before displacement 46.5 % of the respondents' parents tookagricultureasmainoccupationbutduetoimmediateeffectoflossoftheir agriculturallandithascomedowntozeropercentafterdisplacement.Themajor changehasseeninthewagelabourerbecausebeforedisplacement17.2%ofthe parentswereinvolvedaswagelabourersbutduetodisplacementasanimmediateadjustment70%ofthemengagedaswagelabourers.Againincaseofpottery industry27%ofthemwereengagedbeforedisplacementbutasaresultofdisplacementithascomedownto2.7%.Priortodisplacement incaseofweaving 2.8%ofthemwereengagedbutafterdisplacementithasincreasedslightlyto4.2 %.Occupationsoffishing3%ofthemwereengagedbutafterdisplacementithas comedowntoonly0.1%.Butbeforedisplacementnoneofthemengagedinserviceandbusinesssectorbutafterdisplacement0.7%ofthemengagedinservice and1.2%ofthemengagedinbusiness.
Fromthestudywehaveseenthatriverbankerosionhasanadverseimpactonthe socio-economicprofileofthedisplacedpeoplefromMajuli.Riverbankerosion seriouslyaffectsthelivelihoodoftheaffectedpeople.Beingaffectedmanypeoplebecomeassetless,homeless,landless;inaword,poorovernight.Theylose homestead,house,cultivablelands,andmanyotherproperties.Afterbeingdisplacedthedisplaceesfirstneedistofindoutsomeplacewheretheycanresttle. Underthesecircumstancesgettingshelterbecomesadifficultissueforthem.So. Government have to come forward to resettle them. But the displaceses were forcedtoaccepttheirlossduetoriverbankerosiondisplacement.Theydidnot haveanyalternativewayoflossacceptanceastheyfailedtoprotecttheircultivableland,homesteadplot,plantationareas,livestockandothervaluablepropertiesfromcataclysmofriverbankerosion.Thedisplaceesacceptedtheirlossdue to erosion. River bank erosion displacement breakdown the family structure, socio-economiccharacteristicsalsochanged.
Fromthestudywehavealsoseenthatthetypeofworkofthedisplacedpeople changed.Theyareboundtochangetheirtypeofworkasoccupation.Beforedisplacement 42.7 % of the respondent household's main occupation was agricul-
XIII. Lane,E.W.,(1955),Theimportanceoffluvialmorphologyinhydraulicengineering,Proc.Am.Soc.Civilengineering,81,pp1-17.
XIV MarkWyman: Dps: Europe’s Displaced Persons, 1945-1951, Cornell University Press1998(reprint).ISBN0-8014-8542-8.
XV OMAFRA Staff; G. Wall - Ontario Institute of Pedology; C.S. Baldwin –RidgetownCollege ofAgriculturalTechnology;I.J.Shelton-OntarioInstitute ofPedology
XVI. Rahman, Atiur 1986 Impact of Riverbank Erosion: Survival Strategies of Displacees,ADABNEWS,Vol.XIII,#4:July-August.
XVII. Rudra Kalyan 2003. The Encroaching Ganga and Social Conflicts: The Case of West Bengal, India. Department of Geography, Habra S.C. Mahavidyalaya (College),WestBengal,India.
XVIII. Sarma,J.N.&Phukkan,M.K.(2004)Originandsomegeomophologicacchanges ofMajuliIslandoftheBrahmaputraRiverinAssam,India,Geomorphology,60,119.
XIX. Sarma,J.N.andAcharjee,S(2012):“BankerosionoftheBrahmaputraRiverand Neotectonic activity around Rohmoria Assam, India”,Jour Comunicacoes Geologicas(2012)99,1,33-38.
XX. Sarma,J.N.andPhukan,M.K.(2006):“Bankerosionandbanklinemigrtationof theriverBrahmaputrainAssam,India,duringthetwentiethcentury”,Jour Geol. SocietyofIndia(68),pp1023-1036.