On Being Stuck in Bengal: Immobility in the ‘age of migration’

Abstract

Immobility raises awkward questions for theorists of migration. From their standpoint, migration is unusual behaviour that requires explanation. Its obverse—staying in place—is seen as an ‘obvious’ state of affairs that calls for no explanation. Yet assumptions about the ordinariness of immobility are insecure. For one thing, we know a great deal more about the mobile societies of early modern Asia; for another, Asian mobility in the era of high imperialism is much better understood. Yet despite these cumulative gains in our understanding of the scale of mobility in early-modern and modern Asia, and its acceleration in ‘the age of migration’, immobility continues to be seen as the ‘obvious’ state of affairs. This article suggests some preliminary answers to ‘the immobility paradox’, based on a study of the greater Bengal region. By analysing the impact of the intensifying links, in the late colonial era, between Bengal and the global economy, it shows that this varied widely for different people, in ways that had a profound bearing on their capacity to move. The article develops the notion of ‘deficits’ which worked to inhibit the mobility of particular groups and individuals. Physical frailty and obligations of care, it shows, were crucial factors in shaping immobility. Relations of gender and generation, and the inequalities embedded in these relations, produced ‘overabundances’—of obligations to people and places—that tied certain people down. Finally, it hints at the reasons why, and the ways in which, stayers-on have grown poorer.

‘Kyidug Manyom’: Transnational Migration, Belonging and Social Change in Mustang, Nepal

“…At present, Pasang manages multiple hotels and restaurants and remains politically active in the newly formed rural municipality; his success story being demonstrative of the possibilities migration offers those who can access foreign labor markets-an opportunity that is not available to everyone. As other scholars have noted (Chatterji 2017;Massey 1993;Rogaly 2015), structural inequalities, race, class, gender and other relations of power impact people's ability to migrate. 10 This is certainly the case in Mustang as some families do not have the financial resources from tourism and other means of earning a living or the established kinship networks that make migratory journeys possible.…”

An Im/mobility turn: power geometries of care and migration

“…A growing body of scholarship emphasises the centrality of immobility in analyses of globalisation processes. 2 Some argue that immobility should not be taken for granted as a 'natural' state, and indeed should itself become a key focus of inquiry (Chatterji 2017;Faist 1997). Turner (2007) concentrates on structural and macro geopolitical factors of the era of securitisation, and their various manifestations in the forms of policies and infrastructures, to highlight the 'deep contradictions between the economic need for labour mobility and the state's political need to assert political sovereignty' (287).…”

“…Another relevant body of work for this special issue analyses the interactions between mobility and immobility, bringing back the household as the unit of analysis. In the case she studies, Chatterji (2017) explains that the 'immobility paradox' -the high mobility of some and the immobility of othersresults from gender and generational inequalities that produce an 'overabundances of obligations to people and places' and force some people to be 'stayers-on' (511). This fluidity among household members who may take turns or specialise in either migrating or in staying put, sheds light on the fundamental interactions between mobility and immobility whereby the mobility of some requires the immobility of others and vice-versa (Sassen 2016).…”

Stranded: Indian Travelling Ayahs Negotiating Waiting and Repatriation

“…Similarly, many historians and anthropologists studying migration have perceived waiting as a passive state associated with 'left-behind' relatives of migrants (Murphy, 2020;Parrenas, 2005;Shen, 2012). Others, such as Clive Glaser (2012) and Joya Chatterji (2017), in their inspiring studies, have explained how waiting has been understood as an insignificant adjunct to mobility. While Glaser (2012) focused on how the paralysing waiting experiences of Madeiran women left behind by their migrant husbands have been ignored, Chatterji (2017) explains that focus on migrants and the theatrics of migration give more agential recognition to those who migrate rather than those who waited or chose not to migrate.…”

“…Others, such as Clive Glaser (2012) and Joya Chatterji (2017), in their inspiring studies, have explained how waiting has been understood as an insignificant adjunct to mobility. While Glaser (2012) focused on how the paralysing waiting experiences of Madeiran women left behind by their migrant husbands have been ignored, Chatterji (2017) explains that focus on migrants and the theatrics of migration give more agential recognition to those who migrate rather than those who waited or chose not to migrate. Interpretations of waiting as a passive state of paralysis, contrasted with the active state of mobility, fail to engage with the agency involved in negotiating the conditions which cause people to wait; nor have scholars taken up the variegated impact of gender on this condition of transit.…”