The disappearing nomads

I've been thinking about this one for a few months now but I've been unable to write anything meaningful about it. I'm not sure that even now I have anything particularly worthy to say, but I'm going to try....

Several months ago, on SBS news, there was a feature on the dwindling number of nomads in Mongolia. It seems that most of the nomads have given up their ancestral way of life and moved to the cities in search of stable empl0yment, which of course they dont usually find, being illiterate and often having the wrong skill set for city life. They end up living in large slums and being exploited for manual labour and other low-paying odd jobs.

The nomadic way of life is being stifled not just in Mongolia but in many parts of Asia and the Indian subcontinent. The nomads of the Central Asian plateau, tribal peoples such as the Kazaks, Uighurs, Tajiks, Tatars, Kyrgyz and Uzbeks, over the course of the 20th century have become increasingly urbanized and given up their traditional lifestyles. The same is true for the tribes of the western Himalayas in India such as the Gujjars and the Gaddis. It is true that the government of India has done more to preserve the ancestral traditions of the Himalayan nomads compared to the USSR, PRC and the new Central Asian republics, but there is still undoubtedly a shift from nomadic to static urban lifestyles amongst these people. In the far east of India, the tribal way of life (not always nomadic in these more fertile areas I must point out) is under threat because of different reasons. Here, political instability, rebellion and near civil war is the main threat.

So what are the reasons for this shift?? It is apparent that the lives these people lead when they give up their nomadic lifestyle and take up residence in the cities is often riddled with poverty and exploitation. Yet they must feel that this is the only way to give themselves and their children a better chance in life. It is known that with increasing populations and increasing consumption, land use is becoming increasingly intensive. And land that was previously unused for whatever reason (quality of natural resources, access etc) is becoming more attractive to use. For the "greater good", it is often the indigenous nomads whose priorities are ignored. Historically, certain regions in the world became populated by nomads because the land was not fertile or hospitable enough for sustaining a permanent population. These regions are hence sparsely populated and in certain seasons unpopulated by humans. By necessity, the land required to support a certain number of people is quite large, in contrast to say the floodplains of the Ganga which contains extremely fertile land and has supported massive static populations.

But with improved technology, human beings are able to utilize much of this 'poor' quality land. As the need arises, many of these previously 'untouched' areas are being encroached upon. The amount of land available to indigenous nomads dwindles as a result. Areas of Kashmir and Himachal in northern India have been reserved by the Indian government for exclusive use of the indigenous nomads, but actions such as this are the exception rather than the rule. This issue has been in focus in India over the last few months (sadly for the wrong reasons much of the time) with the planned construction of a dam on the river Narmada. If this dam is built, acres of land upstream will be flooded, thereby displacing many thousands of local nomads. But the government argues that while several thousands will suffer, lakhs (1 lakh= 1,00,000) and lakhs will benefit from improved irrigation and more constant electricity.

So what are the solutions?? Will the vibrant nomadic cultures of Asia be alive and functioning or will they be superceded by hyperintense agriculture etc. within a generation or two? What is the exact responsibility of governments, remembering that 21st century national boundaries are an artificial imposition which have little meaning for the wandering nomads of Central Asia particularly?