




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 3 (2): 135–148, July 2020 

 
SPECIAL SECTION: New Epistemologies of Water in India  
 

Fluid Epistemologies: The Social Saga of Sediment in 
Bengal 
 

Jenia Mukherjee  and Pritwinath Ghosh  
 
Abstract: By using the term ―fluid‖, this article critically interrogates western 
ontologies of ―solid‖ (land) and ―liquid‖ (flowing waters), which were transplanted 
in colonial South Asia and transmitted in post-Independence river/water policies 
and actions with severe socio-ecological implications. Drawing lessons from recent 
environmental history and political ecology of water (―hydrosocial‖) literature that 
shed light on liminal scapes beyond the mainstream land/water binary in 
hydrological studies, this study conceptualizes ―fluidscapes‖ by drawing on field 
research in the river islands (chars) of Lower Bengal. By capturing snippets of 
livelihoods in the chars of the Malda and Murshidabad districts, West Bengal, 
situated upstream and downstream of the Farakka Barrage respectively, this article 
advances why and how it is imperative to rethink sediment beyond its physical-
geomorphological existence and to see it as social sites of interactions. It unravels 
avenues through which chars can be perceived as not only emblems of uncertainty 
but also as zones of possibility bestowed with rich ecosystem services and the 
collective resilience of choruas. 

Keywords: River Islands, Sediments, Ecosystem Services, Ganga, Bengal 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Anthropocene, loaded with a planetary doomsday message and a 
clarion call to collectively understand complex systems like the 
environment, has made for epistemic pluralities dedicated to challenging 

                                                           
 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur 

721302, India; jenia@hss.iitkgp.ac.in.  

 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur 
721302, India; pritwinathghosh@gmail.com. 

Copyright © Mukherjee and Ghosh 2020. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.222  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.222


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [136] 

and surpassing various forms of Cartesian binaries that have operated for 
long, constricting our mindscapes and actions. The formulation of the 
―fluid‖ or of ―fluidscapes‖ is an attempt to critically interrogate western 
ontologies of ―solid‖ (land) and ―liquid‖ (flowing water), which were 
transplanted to colonial South Asia and transmitted into post-Independence 
river/water policies and actions with severe socio-ecological implications. 
Drawing on lessons from environmental history and the political ecology of 
water (including ―hydrosocial‖) literature, which shed light on the liminal, 
nebulous scapes beyond the mainstream land/water binary in hydrological 
studies, this article conceptualizes ―fluidscapes‖ based on information and 
insights from field research conducted on the river islands (chars) of the 
Lower Ganga Basin, West Bengal.  

We shed light on two chars: Hamidpur in Malda District and Nirmal in 
Murshidabad District, West Bengal, situated upstream and downstream of 
the Farakka Barrage, respectively. The barrage has intensified erosion and 
sedimentation by interrupting the natural flow of the River Ganga in its 
lower course. These chars have complex histories of land submergence and 
emergence, which in turn have shaped the lives and livelihoods of the 
choruas.1 These areas have also been marked by conflicts arising from 
contestations of inter-state (Bangladesh) and intra-state (Jharkhand) 
boundaries due to the constant shifting of the river. Moreover, the residents 
of Hamidpur Char recently gained citizenship rights in India by mobilizing 
the choruas with the support of non-statist organizations.  

The literature on river islands is scarce and features overtly declensional 
narratives. By capturing snippets from the lives and livelihoods of people 
living in chars, and exploring the everyday lived and embodied realities of 
choruas in these shifting sediments, this article advances why and how it is 
imperative to rethink sediment beyond its physical-geomorphological 
existence and perceive it as a site of social interaction. The multilayered 
physicality of sediment, along with its ephemerality in estuarine contexts, 
comprises dense social stories woven within the web of temporality, 
crafting inexplicable trajectories awaiting explorations from a pluralistic 
research lens. Here, we attempt to unravel the avenues through which chars 
can be considered not only emblems of uncertainty but also as zones of 
possibility, which are bestowed with rich ecosystem services and the 
collective resilience of the choruas. 

 

 

                                                           
1 In the Bengali dialect, people inhabiting chars are known as choruas. 



[137] Jenia Mukherjee and Pritwinath Ghosh 

2. THEORETICAL APPROACHES 

The social dimensions of sediment can be contextualized within the 
environmental history and political ecology of water studies and, more 
specifically, hydrosociality. Till date, the significance of sediment has been 
studied mainly from technical perspectives—physical geographical, 
sedimentological, fluvial geomorphological, hydrological, and 
hydrobiological—that attest to the significance of sediment circulation in 
riverine systems. However, these perspectives ignore the sediment–society 
connect, i.e., livelihoods that depend on sediment, which are thickly 
populated by ecosystem-dependent marginalized communities that adapt to 
these ―muddyscapes‖. By addressing problems relating to the 
implementation of ―colonial hydrology‖ (D‘Souza 2006), South Asian 
environmental social science scholarship has exposed us to multilayered 
realities surrounding human engagements with muddy terrains in tropical-
deltaic-estuarine geographies across time (Mukherjee 2011; Lahiri-Dutt and 
Samanta 2013; Baruah and Mukherjee 2018; de Micheaux, Mukherjee, and 
Kull 2018).  

The hydrosocial cycle describes how ―water and society make and remake 
each other over space and time‖ (Linton and Budds 2014, 170). While early 
hydrosocial literature mainly dealt with political and social injustices around 
water services in urban landscapes, the recent thrust has been on rivers, and 
specifically on issues surrounding dam construction and the related 
controversies, irrigation maintenance and conflicts, and river basin 
governance (Baruah and Mukherjee 2018; de Micheaux, Mukherjee, and 
Kull 2018). What happens when hydrosociality encounters sediment? De 
Micheaux, Mukherjee, and Kull (2018) have postulated a 
―hydro(sediment)social‖ (HSS) cycle by advancing hydrosocial analysis with 
an enhanced consideration of the sediment component of river materiality. 
The HSS cycle encompasses the manifold ways in which humans and non-
humans mesh in hydrological and social relations, impinging on water 
circulation, distribution, and quality, along with the materials that the water 
gathers—muddy sediment (Mukherjee 2018). The formulation becomes 
extremely relevant and meaningful in the tropical deltaic-estuarine contexts 
of South Asia. The conceptualization challenges ―colonial hydrology‖ and 
its continued legacy and implications for river discourses, management, and 
governance paradigms and actions. Drawing on the work of geographers 
and anthropologists (Appadurai and Breckenridge 2009; Lahiri-Dutt 2014; 
Krause 2017), researchers have very recently coined the term ―fluidscape‖, 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [138] 

which combines ―moving‖ biophysical and social realities, and includes 
water flows, sediment, river channels, populations, etc.2  

 

3. SCHOLARSHIP ON RIVER ISLANDS  

Despite a growing interest in island studies, river islands have been largely 
ignored (Baruah and Mukherjee 2018). In the words of Lahiri-Dutt (2014), 
―[River islands] exist in the vocabulary neither of those who study rivers, 
nor those who study islands, and have largely remained beyond the 
mainstream discussions on nature/culture‖ (22). Within the (eastern) Indian 
context, Lahiri-Dutt and Samanta (2013) offer an intimate glimpse into the 
microcosmic world of the (Damodar) chars. They depict coping 
mechanisms rooted in the embodied experiences of choruas who keep 
―dancing with the river‖ and drifting in the nebulous space. However, 
Mukherjee (2011), while describing empirical realities in the Ganga chars, 
explains why coping should not be romanticized, but should rather be 
understood as a ―compulsory exercise‖.  

The recently edited volume by Basu, Roy, and Samaddar (2018) employs a 
political ecology perspective to explore riverine erosion in the Brahmaputra 
chars, crises relating to resource allocation, massive displacements in deltaic 
Bengal, and challenges emanating from migration resulting from floods in 
the Barak River in Northeast India. Going beyond this declensionism 
implicit in political ecology narratives, we explore both the challenges and 
potentials of river islands, which, we argue, can be harnessed in the long 
run to reimagine the fates of chars and choruas across shifting material and 
social realities.  

 

4. METHODOLOGY  

This article is based on a series of field explorations conducted upstream 
(Malda) and downstream (Murshidabad) of the Farakka Barrage as part of a 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Project (2011–12), 
in which teams from India and Bangladesh documented existing ecosystem 
services in the chars. This research was followed by another exchange grant 
(Indian Council of Social Science Research-University of Lausanne) 
between Indian and Swiss scholars (2015–17), which allowed for the 
livelihood dynamics in these fragile fluidscapes to be explored (Map 1).  

                                                           
2 The EU-India funded EqUIP Project (of which the lead author is the Indian Principal 
Investigator) uses ―fluidscape‖ as the theoretical traction to forge ―fluid governance‖ in the 
Ganga and Rhône Deltas.  



[139] Jenia Mukherjee and Pritwinath Ghosh 

Map 1: The Lower Ganga Basin, West Bengal 

 

Source: Google Maps. Accessed on 23 
January, 2020. 

In January 2020, a field visit was conducted to generate more up-to-date 
information on the quotidian realities of the choruas. These realities are 
determined and shaped by river erosion and floods; the roles played by 
several statist and non-statist actors like block development officers, 

panchayat pradhans3, non-
governmental organizations 
(NGOs), and grassroots 
organizations; and an array of 
situated adaptive practices 
pursued by the choruas for 
sustenance and survival in 
the chars. Field explorations 
were conducted during 
different seasons (summer, 
winter, and monsoon) to 
observe whether livelihood 
equations are affected by 
seasonal variations. Detailed 
ethnography through the 
application of qualitative 
methods like focus group 
discussions (FGDs), key 
informant interviews (KIIs), 
and case narratives were 
pursued to validate and 
cross-validate information 
across a range of actors, from 
government officials to 
choruas. 

 

5. LESSONS FROM THE FIELD 

Char formation is a natural occurrence in the Lower Ganga Basin. 
However, the implementation of the Farakka Barrage Project has impacted 
patterns of riverine sedimentation with repercussions on the formation, 
consolidation, and dissolution of chars. The upstream and downstream of 
the barrage is dotted with more temporary chars; the constant emergence 
and submergence phenomena has forged repetitive cycles of settlement— 
displacement—resettlement—re-displacement (SDRR), in turn shaping 

                                                           
3 The elected head or decision-maker of the lowest unit of the village administration—the 
panchayat. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [140] 

Map 2: Hamidpur Char 

 

Source: Google Maps. Accessed on 23 

January, 2020 

vulnerability and adaptive practices among choruas (Mukherjee 2011). The 
two empirical case studies presented here will validate this proposition. 

5.1. Case study 1: Hamidpur 
Char, Malda 

Hamidpur Char is located in 
Kaliachak II Block, Malda 
District (Map 2). It is situated 
15 km upstream of the Farakka 
Barrage. It spans 15,700 ha and 
about 210,000 people inhabit 
the char. Agriculture is the 
primary occupation in this char. 
Kaliachak II is one of the most 
environmentally vulnerable 
blocks among Malda‘s 15 
blocks. There are disastrous 
floods and erosions almost 
every year during the monsoon. 
In the last 20 years, one-fourth 
of the territory of Kaliachak II 
has been eroded, 22 villages 
have been completely 
destroyed, and 8 villages have 
been partially swallowed by the 
river. Within the Hamidpur 
Gram Panchayat (GP) 
boundary, eight villages were 
completely waterlogged during 
frequent floods in 2011, 2013, 
2015, and 2016.4 

With the eastward shifting of 
the Ganga since the 1970s, villages on mainland Hamidpur have been 
submerged, and new chars have emerged on the other bank of the river, 
adjacent to Jharkhand, the neighbouring state. The flood and erosion 
victims were compelled to migrate and settle in the newly emerged chars to 
pursue their livelihoods. Hamidpur Char is one such island with a settled 
population. Indeed, the desperate attempt of those who lost their homes on 

                                                           
4 Interview conducted with the Kaliachak II Block Development Officer in July, 2017. 



[141] Jenia Mukherjee and Pritwinath Ghosh 

Figure 1: An interview respondent 
showing documentary evidence of 
land entitlement  

 

Source: Authors (19 November 
2011) 

mainland Hamidpur to retain their old connections and memories is evident 
in the nomenclature of the char. 

Although the choruas have established some basic mechanisms to sustain 
themselves on Hamidpur Char, the government does not recognize their 
tenurial rights. The char is considered as shikasti (governmental non-revenue 
land) according to the Revenue Bill (an outcome of the Bengal Alluvion and 
Diluvion Act, 1825), which states that if a piece of land that was previous 
submerged in water re-emerges, it becomes state property; as such, no 
revenue can be generated on the re-emerged char. Due to the lack of 
governmental recognition, people in Hamidpur Char suffer from a lack of 
access to basic infrastructural facilities like schools, roads, health centres, 

etc. There have also been instances of illegal trafficking of cattle, crops, 
medicines, etc. and other criminal activities, including the trafficking of 
women. Trafficking occurs most during the winter and monsoon because 
the fog and rain act as significant barriers to Indian Border Security Force 
(BSF) personnel operating from check posts.  

The continuous shifting of the river and the emergence and submergence 
of chars are crucial variables that complicate the story of citizenship or non-

citizenship in this ―fluidscape‖ (Figure 
1). While the Government of West 
Bengal has remained indifferent to 
granting citizenship rights to the 
choruas settled in Hamidpur Char, the 
Jharkhand Government issued voter 
ID cards to some of the villagers 
(particularly to those inhabiting villages 
in the western part of the char, close to 
Jharkhand) in 1990. When the char 
started eroding on the western side in 
1998 and the choruas migrated to the 
eastern part, they still retained the 
voter ID cards issued by the Jharkhand 
Government but could not avail of any 
facilities as they could not access the 

state directly; the river lay between them and Jharkhand.  

In 1998, troubled by material losses and the government‘s apathy, educated 
and informed villagers formed the Ganga Bhangan Pratirodh Action 
Nagorik Committee (GBPANC). These villagers were supported by active 
researchers working in the area. Soon, a grassroots movement emerged with 
the support of action groups and NGOs like Child Rights and You (CRY). 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [142] 

The movement aimed to secure disaster relief and better rehabilitation for 
the choruas. The action groups mapped and surveyed the chars and 
attempted to initiate the institutionalization of these islands to ensure better 
protection and eligibility to access government welfare schemes for the 
choruas.  

These efforts finally culminated in the choruas in Hamidpur Char 
collectively demanding recognition and their citizenship rights. Scholar-
activists like Kalyan Rudra promoted and supported the movement. Rudra‘s 
technical findings shed light on the Farakka Barrage‘s role in disrupting the 
natural flow of the Ganga and in turn aggravating floods and erosion in the 
Malda and Murshidabad districts (Rudra 2003); his work provided a much-
needed scientific edge to the choruas‘ cause. In December 2010, GBPANC 
organized a multi-stakeholder meeting in Hamidpur Char. At that event, the 
choruas got the opportunity to show their (past) property entitlements to 
the additional district magistrate (ADM) of Malda District. As a direct 
consequence of this event, the choruas received identity cards and voter ID 
cards from the government in 2011.  

Once the char received governmental recognition, two primary schools and 
a junior school were constructed between 2012 and 2015, and electricity 
access was ensured in 2015. Emergency centres were also built. Since 2014, 
a woman from Hamidpur Char has represented her people as an elected 
member of the Hamidpur Gram Panchayat. Official recognition also paved 
the way for the political participation of the choruas. They are now the 
beneficiaries of numerous government initiatives and schemes such as 
Nirmal Bangla (Clean Mission, Bengal), Madhyamik Siksha Kendras (MSK) 
and Sishu Siksha Kendras (SSK), pulse polio and other immunization 
programmes. The char residents can now reap the benefits of government 
schemes through continuous activism and simultaneously remain free of 
having to pay agricultural revenues, as it still enjoys the status of shikasti. 
The choruas access an array of environmental services from this fertile land 
(Annexure); they get immense livelihood benefits, evident in the remark of 
the block development officer (BDO), Kaliachak II, ―People are no longer 
poor there‖.5  

5.2. Case study 2: Nirmal Char, Murshidabad  

A severe flood in 1989–1990 caused major erosion and led to the 
submergence of Akherigunj in Block Bhagwangola II, Murshidabad 
District. ―Akherigunj‖, which literally means ―the last settlement‖, 
disappeared from the map. The disastrous erosion engulfed 2,766 houses 

                                                           
5 Interview conducted in July 2017. 



[143] Jenia Mukherjee and Pritwinath Ghosh 

Map 3: Nirmal Char 

 

Source: Authors 

and left 23,394 persons homeless (Rudra 2003). Nirmal Char emerged on 
the opposite bank of the river between 1990 and 1992 (Map 3). The erosion 
victims migrated and settled in the newly emerged char. Another massive 
flood occurred in 1998, following which Nirmal Char took its present shape 
(Map 3). The northeastern part of Nirmal Char has a big village that covers 
571.42 ha under the Akherigunj Gram Panchayat; it has a population of 
24,754.6 

Agriculture is the major occupation there; however, people have other 
livelihoods as well. Some women are involved in cultivation and livestock 
rearing (Table 1). The women also take part in manufacturing fuel wood 
(using jute sticks and cow dung) and in small-scale agro-based production 
(Figure 2). Floods and erosion are common phenomena during the 
monsoon (between June and September) every year. The oscillating river 
downstream of the Farakka Barrage claims acres of the char and impacts 
the lives and livelihoods of choruas. Crops are destroyed and the quality of 
yield is reduced, which further lowers the market selling price of crops. 

                                                           
6 Interview conducted with the village resource person (VRP) in January 2020. The VRP is a 
contractual post which was created in 2013. VRPs are recruited by the district social unit of 
the state government.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [144] 

Figure 2: Women engaged in work 

 

Source: Authors (28 January 2020) 

         Table 1: Occupations in Nirmal Char 

Sex Occupation Percentage 

Male Farming 78 

Livestock 10 

Fishing 11 

Other jobs 1 

Female Farming  2 

Livestock 1 

Cooking (midday meal) 5 

Housewives/domestic help 92 

        Source: Records provided by the VRP (29 January, 2020) 

After every disaster, people suffer from diarrhoea, fungal infections, 
snakebites, etc. and cannot afford to go to the health sub-centre of the 
Akherigunj GP, as communication gets disrupted. 
 

Nirmal Char shares a 
boundary with the 
Rajshahi District of 
Bangladesh. Due to acute 
poverty, especially after 
floods, competing claims 
among the farmers of the 
two countries intensify, 
and choruas become 
desperate to set up 
farming operations in the 
―zero point‖. As such, 
this is highly risky, as it is 
illegal to farm on this 
―no-man‘s land‖. Indeed, 
there are strict security 
restrictions imposed by the Bangladesh BSF.  

A series of field explorations between 2011 and 2020 captured changes in 
this char in terms of availability and access to public infrastructures. Nine 
primary schools, seven Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) 
centres, one primary health centre, and one flood centre now operate here. 
The people receive benefits under various government welfare schemes: 
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), Swachh Bharat 
Abhiyan (Open Defecation Free Village), etc. 



[145] Jenia Mukherjee and Pritwinath Ghosh 

Figure 4: Donga or chui nouka  

 

Source: Authors (19 November 2011) 

Figure 3: Houses made from jiyal trees 

 

Source: Authors (19 November 2011) 

There was a dearth of disaster awareness and response until quite recently. 
AID USA distributed food (rice, pulses, potatoes, etc.) to 367 families and 
polythene tent materials to 70 families during the 2011 floods. Since 2015, 
an NGO called Future Achievement has implemented local disaster 
mitigation measures. Moreover, the choruas pursue adaptive practices using 
intergenerational social skill sets to combat the lack of adequate policy-
driven initiatives. The ecosystem services not only allow the choruas to 
sustain themselves in this fragile landscape, but they are also significant 
flood resilient mechanisms (Annexure).  

When the char is waterlogged, choruas live on their machas (rooftops) for 
several days until the water recedes. They arrange wooden cots on bamboo 
poles and use polythene tents as covers. Their houses are made from jiyal 

trees, the roots of which are deeply entrenched in the soil, making the 
houses storm resistant (Figure 3). Boats made of tin sheets called donga or 
chui nouka can accommodate up to two persons (Figure 4). These act as 
effective modes of communication between char villages; they connect 
families during times of disrupted communication. 

6. Conclusion 

―Human technology, livelihoods, social relations and power equations are 
just as imbricated with river sediment processes as they are with simply 
water‖ (Baruah and Mukherjee 2018, 335). While the global discourse of the 
Anthropocene presents islands as ―hazardscapes‖ that are vulnerable to 
climate change (particularly sea-level rise), the social analysis of local 
realities in shifting sediment across historical and political dimensions 
depict chars as ―not lines of separation but zones of 
interaction…transformation, transgression and possibility‖ (Howitt 2001, 
240). While these ephemeral and transient river islands are exposed to 
erosion and the far-flung impacts of climate change, the intensity of 
vulnerability is lower, as it depends on a combination of factors, including 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [146] 

the community‘s exposure and sensitivity to hazards and their adaptive 
capacity and collective resilience (Das 2012; Das and D‘Souza 2020). The 
embodied experience, knowledge, and capabilities of the choruas are forged 
by and aligned to the chars. The livelihood capabilities, cultural practices, 
and perceptions of the choruas await detailed documentation; these can 
shed light on the array of coping mechanisms that can be considered 
significant from the climate change perspective. Sediment-enriched 
hydrosocial realities have to be incorporated into policy formulation related 
to floods, climate change, etc., making way for neither solid nor liquid but 
―fluid governance‖, especially within tropical-estuarine-deltaic contexts. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Authors would like to acknowledge IUCN, UNIL-ICSSR SEG (2015-17), 
ISIRD, IIT Kharagpur (2017-2021) and EU-India EqUIP Project (2019-
2022) for providing funds to pursue the field research. 

 

REFERENCES 

Appadurai, Arjun and Carol A. Breckenridge. 2009. ―Foreword.‖ In Soak: Mumbai 
in an Estuary, edited by Anuradha Mathur and Dilip Da Cunha, 1–3. New Delhi: 
Rupa Publications. 

Baruah, Mitul and Jenia Mukherjee. 2018. ―Rivers and Estuaries.‖ In The Routledge 
International Handbook of Island Studies, edited by Godfrey Baldacchino, 324–338. 
Oxon and New York: Routledge.  

Basu, Madhurilata, Rajat Roy, and Ranabir Samaddar. 2018. Political Ecology of 
Survival: Life and Labour in the River Lands of East and North-East India. New Delhi: 
Orient Blackswan.  

Das, Saudamini. 2012. ―The Role of Natural Ecosystems and Socio-economic 
Factors in the Vulnerability of Coastal Villages to Cyclone and Storm Surge.‖ 
Natural Hazards 64 (June): 531–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0255-9.  

Das, Saudamini and Nisha Maria D‘Souza. 2020. ―Identifying the Local Factors of 
Resilience during Cyclone Hudhud and Phailin on the East Coast of India.‖ Ambio 
49 (September): 950–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01241-7.  

D‘Souza, Rohan. 2006. ―Water in British India: The Making of a ‗Colonial 
Hydrology.‘‖ History Compass 4 (4): 621–628.  

Howitt, Richie. 2001. ―Frontiers, Borders and Edges: Liminal Challenges to the 
Hegemony of Exclusion. Australian Geographical Studies 39 (2): 233–245. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8470.00142. 

Krause, Franze. 2017. ―Towards an Amphibious Anthropology of Delta Life.‖ 
Human Ecology 45 (3): 403–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9902-9.  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0255-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01241-7
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8470.00142
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9902-9


[147] Jenia Mukherjee and Pritwinath Ghosh 

De Micheaux, Flore Lafaye, Jenia Mukherjee, and Christian A. Kull. 2018. ―When 
Hydrosociality Encounters Sediments: Transformed Lives and Livelihoods in the 
Lower Basin of the Ganges River.‖ Environment  and Planning  E:  Nature  and  Space  
1 (4): 641–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618813768.  

Lahiri-Dutt, Kuntala. 2014. ―Beyond the Water-Land Binary in Geography: 
Water/Lands of Bengal Re-visioning Hybridity.‖ ACME: An International E-Journal 
for Critical Geographies 13 (3): 505–529.  

Lahiri-Dutt, Kuntala, and Gopa Samanta. 2013. Dancing with the River: People and Life 
on the Chars of South Asia. Yale: Yale University Press. 

Linton, Jamie and Jessica Budds. 2014. ―The Hydrosocial Cycle: Defining and 
Mobilizing a Relational-Dialectical Approach to Water.‖ Geoforum 57 (November): 
170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.008.  

Mukherjee, Jenia. 2011. No Voice, No Choice: Riverine Changes and Human Vulnerability 
in the “Chars” of Malda and Murshidabad. Occasional Paper 28. Kolkata: Institute of 
Development Studies. http://idsk.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OP-28.pdf.  

Mukherjee, Jenia. 2018. ―From Hydrology to Hydrosociality: Historiography of 
Waters in India.‖ In Routledge Handbook of the History of Sustainability, edited by 
Jeremy L. Caradonna, 254–272. UK: Routledge. 

Rudra, Kalyan. 2003. The Encroaching Ganga and Social Conflicts: The Case of West 
Bengal, India. West Bengal: Department of Geography, Habra H.C. Mahavidyalaya.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2514848618813768
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.008
http://idsk.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OP-28.pdf


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [148] 

ANNEXURE  

Table: Ecosystem services 

Types  Services  Benefits 

Provisioning Food crops: rice (varieties: ayush and 
boro), wheat, pulses (kalai), 
vegetables (gourd, eggplant, 
cauliflower, etc.) 
Cash crops: jute, corn, chillies, 
turmeric 
Fruit: watermelon, banana, 
cucumber, etc. 

Subsistence; surplus sold 
in mainland markets 

Livestock: cow, buffalo, goat, sheep, 
poultry  

Subsistence; 
transportation; agriculture; 
assets during times of 
crises (floods and erosion) 

Fish: rui, tangra, boal, katla, chingri, 
ritha, chital (indigenous names) 

Subsistence; surplus sold 
in the market against cash 
income 

Medicines (herbs): keshra (a grass 
variety) 

Locally used by ojhas 
(traditional healers) or 
non-certified rural 
healthcare providers  

Fuel wood: cow dung (ghunte), dried 
jute sticks and cow dung (lodha)  

Natural energy resource 
for cooking, lighting, etc. 

Water: groundwater (accessed 
through tube wells), the river (and 
its sediment) 

Drinking; cultivation; 
transportation 

Housing: mud (floor), straw (roofs), 
bundles of jute sticks (walls), jiyal 
trees (pillars), etc. 

Flood resistant makeshift 
houses 

Regulating Water regulation: recharged 
floodplains after every flood 

Fertile soil for agriculture 
Recharged groundwater  

Pollution control: flushing of waste 
and pollutants after heavy floods 

Regenerated soil 

Supporting Navigation Transportation 

Natural resource for livestock feed: 
kaishas (a local variety of grass) 

Livestock nutrition 

Cultural Water festivals and rituals; folk 
songs; lores by the Chais (a local 
ethnic community) 

Cultural bonding, 
collective living, resilience 

Source: Field explorations by the authors (2011/2017/2020) 

 


