📌 This assignment is given by Smt. S.B. Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University as part of the academic curriculum for Paper No. 203 — The Postcolonial Studies (Paper Code: 22408), Semester 03, Batch 2025–2027.
From Terra Nullius to Indigenous Futurism:
Reimagining Land, Sovereignty, and Technology after Colonialism
🎓 Academic Details
| Name | : Sanjay M. Rathod |
| Roll No. | : 28 |
| Enrollment No. | : 5108250029 |
| Sem. | : 03 |
| Batch | : 2025–2027 |
| : sanjaymrathod13@gmail.com |
📋 Assignment Details
| Paper Name | : The Postcolonial Studies |
| Paper No. | : 203 |
| Paper Code | : 22408 |
| Topic | : From Terra Nullius to Indigenous Futurism: Reimagining Land, Sovereignty, and Technology after Colonialism |
| Submitted To | : Smt. S.B. Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University |
| Submitted Date | : October 19, 2026 |
📊 The following information numbers are counted using QuillBot:
📖 BLOG OVERVIEW — SIX CHAPTERS, ONE ARGUMENT
Chapter 1
Terra Nullius & Colonial Dispossession
Chapter 2
Settler Colonialism & Coloniality of Land
Chapter 3
Andaman to Niyamgiri: India's Terra Nullius
Chapter 4
Indigenous Futurism: Land, Sovereignty & Tech
Chapter 5
Data Sovereignty, AI & Digital Futurism
Chapter 6
Toward Terra Communis: Adivasi Futurism
📑 Table of Contents
- Abstract
- Keywords
- Research Question
- Hypothesis
- Chapter 1: Terra Nullius and the Architecture of Colonial Dispossession
- Chapter 2: Settler Colonialism, Modernity, and the Coloniality of Land
- Chapter 3: From the Andaman Islands to Niyamgiri: Postcolonial India's Terra Nullius
- Chapter 4: Indigenous Futurism: Reimagining Land, Sovereignty, and Technology
- Chapter 5: Technology after Colonialism: Data Sovereignty, AI, and the Digital Dimension of Indigenous Futurism
- Chapter 6: Toward Terra Communis: An Indigenous Futurist Vision for Postcolonial India and Beyond
- Works Cited
Abstract
In this paper I examine how the colonial legal fiction of terra nullius, which rendered Indigenous presence invisible in order to justify dispossession, did not vanish with the formal end of empire. Drawing on historical, legal, and theoretical sources, I show that terra nullius was reproduced in postcolonial India through development policy, conservation regimes, and nationalist narratives that continued to treat Adivasi lands as empty or underused. Against this inherited structure of erasure I turn to Indigenous Futurism, a cultural and political movement that reclaims land, sovereignty, and technology as sites of Indigenous self-determination. I argue that the Indian variant of this movement, which I call Adivasi Futurism, finds partial legal expression in the Forest Rights Act of 2006, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996, and the consent provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013. By bringing together settler-colonial theory, Indigenous sovereignty scholarship, and visions of technological self-determination, the paper proposes terra communis as a philosophical horizon that can guide more just relations to land and knowledge in the age of artificial intelligence.
Keywords
Terra nullius Indigenous Futurism Settler colonialism Adivasi rights Forest Rights Act 2006 Indigenous sovereignty Data sovereignty Terra communis Westphalian sovereignty Decolonial futures
Research Question
How does the colonial doctrine of terra nullius persist in postcolonial Indian state practice and discourse, and in what ways can Indigenous Futurism, including its emerging Adivasi expressions, offer a counter-imagination of land, sovereignty, and technology capable of dismantling that persistence?
Hypothesis
I hypothesize that the doctrine of terra nullius, a colonial legal fiction that rendered Indigenous presence legally invisible to justify dispossession, did not disappear with Indian independence in 1947. Rather, it was reproduced through postcolonial development, conservation, and nationalist discourse, as evidenced by the ongoing displacement of Adivasi communities. Against this inherited structure of colonial erasure, Indigenous Futurism, as a global cultural-political movement and in its emergent Indian Adivasi variant, offers a counter-imagination that reclaims land, sovereignty, and technology as sites of Indigenous self-determination in the age of AI.
🔑 CORE ARGUMENT AT A GLANCE
⚖️ Terra Nullius — A colonial legal fiction that rendered Indigenous presence invisible to justify land theft — never truly ended with decolonization.
🏗️ Settler Colonialism — Not an event but an ongoing structure: development policy, conservation regimes, and nationalist narratives reproduce Indigenous erasure.
🚀 Indigenous Futurism — A counter-imagination that projects thriving Indigenous cultures with their own lands, technologies, and ontologies.
🌿 Terra Communis — The philosophical horizon: communal land regimes grounded in Indigenous rights, reciprocal obligations, and data sovereignty.
Chapter 1: Terra Nullius and the Architecture of Colonial Dispossession
I begin with the legal and philosophical foundations of terra nullius because any serious discussion of Indigenous futures must first confront the mechanisms that sought to erase Indigenous pasts and presents. The phrase terra nullius, meaning land belonging to no one, did not simply describe a physical condition. It performed a legal and moral erasure that made colonization appear as an act of settlement rather than conquest or theft.
1.1 Legal-Historical Definition and Critique
Stuart Banner demonstrates that British authorities treated Australia as terra nullius even though the same empire had already abandoned the doctrine in North America and would later reject it in New Zealand (Banner 95). By the late eighteenth century, official policy in North America recognized Indigenous property rights and structured land transfers as purchases. In New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi formally acknowledged Maori ownership. Australia stood out as the anomaly. Banner asks why a policy already rejected elsewhere became the foundation of Australian colonization and why humanitarian agitation in the 1830s and 1840s failed to overturn it. His answer lies partly in the anthropological assumptions of the period: Aboriginal societies were judged too fluid and mobile to possess recognizable proprietary systems (Banner 96–97). Once that judgment hardened into law, it remained the law until the High Court's decision in Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2) in 1992.
What Banner makes clear is that terra nullius was never a neutral description of empty land. It was a selective refusal to see existing systems of ownership, governance, and belonging. The same refusal appears, with local variations, across other settler colonies and, as I will show later, in postcolonial India.
1.2 Philosophical Roots in Liberal Theory
Bruce Buchan and Mary Heath push the analysis further by locating terra nullius inside the liberal tradition's contrast between savagery and civilization. They argue that colonial authorities denied Indigenous peoples recognizable societies, law, property rights, or sovereignty because those peoples were imagined as living in a pre-civilized state of nature (Buchan and Heath 5). The contrast between savagery and civilization supplied the moral vocabulary that made colonization appear as a gift of order rather than an act of dispossession. Even after the formal rejection of terra nullius in Australian law, the underlying assumptions continue to surface in debates over historical justice and contemporary Indigenous rights (Buchan and Heath 6–7).
Their account matters because it shows that terra nullius was never merely a technical legal doctrine. It was the juridical expression of a deeper hierarchy that ranked forms of life according to their proximity to European norms of agriculture, permanent settlement, and written law. That hierarchy still shapes how states evaluate Indigenous claims to land and self-governance.
Figure 1. The architecture of terra nullius as a colonial legal fiction. Source: Adapted from Banner (2005) and Buchan and Heath (2006).
1.3 Neo-Terra Nullius and Contemporary Conservation
Yogi Hale Hendlin extends the critique into the present by examining how the logic of terra nullius reappears inside environmental conservation. He argues that understanding wild land as belonging to no one entered international law and national constitutions and continues to shape cultural attitudes toward unused or underused territory (Hendlin 141). Conservation projects that fence off forests for biodiversity or carbon sequestration can reproduce the same erasure when they treat Indigenous presence as an obstacle rather than a form of stewardship. Hendlin contrasts this pattern with emerging assertions of terra communis, communal land regimes grounded in Indigenous and local rights (Hendlin 143). His analysis is crucial for understanding why Adivasi communities in India continue to face displacement in the name of protected areas and development projects long after formal independence.
⚖️ THREE FORMS OF TERRA NULLIUS
Colonial legal fiction declaring Indigenous land "empty" to justify British settlement in Australia.
Postcolonial states treating Adivasi lands as "underused" and available for national development projects.
Treating Indigenous forest presence as an obstacle to biodiversity protection rather than stewardship.
Chapter 2: Settler Colonialism, Modernity, and the Coloniality of Land
Having established the historical and philosophical architecture of terra nullius, I now turn to the theoretical frameworks that explain its persistence after formal decolonization. Settler colonialism is not an event that ends with independence ceremonies. It is a structure that continues to organize land, law, and knowledge.
2.1 Settler Colonialism as Ongoing Structure
Aimee Carrillo Rowe and Eve Tuck insist that analyses of settler colonialism must treat it as a present societal structure rather than a completed historical episode (Rowe and Tuck 3). Cultural productions, academic disciplines, and everyday practices remain complicit with ongoing settlement. They warn that even progressive fields such as queer studies, feminist studies, and critical race studies can reproduce Indigenous erasure and anti-Blackness if they do not interrogate their own investments in settler frameworks (Rowe and Tuck 3–4). Their editorial calls for cultural studies to expand its archive and politics so that Indigenous land, dispossession, and resistance become central rather than peripheral concerns.
This insistence on structure rather than event is essential for reading postcolonial India. Independence transferred formal sovereignty from the British Crown to the Indian state, yet the underlying presumption that certain lands were available for national development without meaningful consent from their Indigenous inhabitants remained largely intact.
2.2 Modernity, Coloniality, and Land-Based Decoloniality
Yin Paradies situates settler colonialism inside the broader project of global modernity. He argues that debt, property, institutions, and nation-states constitute the devastations of modernity that must be both confronted and transformed (Paradies 438). The path toward decoloniality, in his view, requires radical land-based relocalization, revitalized communalism, and embodied kinship with all life (Paradies 439). Paradies's emphasis on land relations as the ground of decolonial futures aligns with the Indigenous insistence that sovereignty is not primarily about abstract political power but about reciprocal obligations to territory and kin.
His framework helps explain why legal recognition of rights, while necessary, remains insufficient if the deeper coloniality of modernity continues to treat land as a commodity and Indigenous peoples as obstacles to progress.
2.3 Westphalian versus Indigenous Sovereignty
Harald Bauder and Rebecca Mueller provide a clear contrast between Westphalian sovereignty, the state's supreme territorial authority that frames international law, and Indigenous sovereignty, which they describe as a more relational form of self-determination (Bauder and Mueller 156). Westphalian sovereignty is Eurocentric in origin and has been implicated in the colonization of Indigenous peoples in settler societies. Indigenous sovereignty, by contrast, involves social and cultural dimensions, recognizes interdependencies among political actors and relationships to land, and acknowledges the contextual nature of authority (Bauder and Mueller 157). The two conceptions cannot be fully reconciled. Indigenous sovereignty therefore poses a critical challenge to the dominant definition of political authority.
Figure 2. Contrasting principles of Westphalian and Indigenous sovereignty. Source: Adapted from Bauder and Mueller (2023).
🏛️ WESTPHALIAN vs. INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY — A COMPARISON
| Dimension | 🏛️ Westphalian Sovereignty | 🌿 Indigenous Sovereignty |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Eurocentric, 1648 Peace of Westphalia | Relational, rooted in land and kin |
| Authority | Supreme, territorial, exclusive | Contextual, relational, shared |
| Land Relation | Territory as state property | Land as living kinship obligation |
| Indigenous Claims | Treated as internal exceptions | Alternative sources of political authority |
This distinction is vital for understanding why constitutional recognition of tribal rights in India has often remained subordinated to the developmental priorities of the central state. The Westphalian model continues to treat Indigenous claims as internal exceptions rather than as alternative sources of political authority.
Chapter 3: From the Andaman Islands to Niyamgiri: Postcolonial India's Terra Nullius
I now turn to the Indian context to show how the logics of terra nullius were not abandoned at independence but reconfigured through nationalist development and conservation policy.
3.1 The Andaman Islands as Explicit Terra Nullius
Uditi Sen's study of the Andaman Islands offers one of the clearest demonstrations of postcolonial terra nullius. Colonial epistemology had already produced the islands as no-one's land, devoid of recognized law, agriculture, or sovereignty (Sen 945). After independence, the nationalist elite combined that inherited refusal to acknowledge Indigenous land rights with a new developmental zeal. The result was a state-led project of agricultural expansion that drew settlers from the mainland and reduced Indigenous communities to embattled minorities confined to designated reserves (Sen 945). Legal regimes that promised protection simultaneously normalized displacement and disenfranchisement. The Andamans therefore reveal how settler-colonial governmentality could emerge inside a postcolony.
3.2 Indigenous Sovereignty in Indian Constitutional Discourse
Rashwet Shrinkhal examines the place of Indigenous sovereignty and the right to self-determination in international law, with implications for the Indian constitutional order. He argues that Indigenous sovereignty confronts the empire of uniformity and serves as the source from which the right to self-determination flows (Shrinkhal 71). In practice, however, the right remains derivative within the framework of state territorial sovereignty. Indigenous peoples were long denied recognition as peoples in international law, and even progressive instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples stop short of endorsing secession. Shrinkhal's analysis clarifies why Adivasi claims to self-governance in India must continually negotiate the limits imposed by the unitary state's understanding of sovereignty.
3.3 Conservation, Displacement, and Neo-Terra Nullius
Hendlin's critique of conservation as a potential vehicle for neo-terra nullius finds concrete expression in Indian forest policy. Protected areas and wildlife sanctuaries have frequently been established or expanded through the eviction or severe restriction of Adivasi communities, whose long-standing presence is treated as an encroachment rather than as a legitimate form of occupancy and stewardship. The same logic appears in large development projects that acquire forest and common lands with minimal regard for customary rights. Until the Forest Rights Act of 2006 began to reverse some of these patterns, the Indian state continued to act as if significant portions of the country's forested landscape remained available for national purposes without prior Indigenous consent.
Figure 3. Key legislative milestones that partially challenge terra nullius logics in postcolonial India.
🇮🇳 KEY INDIAN LAWS CHALLENGING TERRA NULLIUS
Recognizes individual and community forest rights; reverses the colonial presumption that forests belonged to the state alone.
Introduces free, prior, and informed consent requirements echoing UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Chapter 4: Indigenous Futurism: Reimagining Land, Sovereignty, and Technology
Against the enduring structures of colonial erasure, Indigenous Futurism offers a generative counter-imagination. Rather than accepting the settler future as inevitable, it projects thriving Indigenous cultures equipped with their own technologies, geographies, and ontologies.
4.1 Visual Arts and Cultural Production
Henrietta Lidchi and Suzanne Newman Fricke introduce Indigenous Futurisms as a framework that uses the images, ideology, and themes of science fiction to envision futures from Native perspectives (Lidchi and Fricke 99). Drawing on Grace Dillon's foundational work, they emphasize the capacity of Indigenous Futurism to renew, recover, and extend First Nations voices and traditions. The movement spans historic arts as well as graphic, performance, and digital forms. Crucially, it treats the apocalyptic dimensions of colonial history as already experienced rather than merely hypothetical, thereby grounding futurist speculation in the lived realities of survivance (Lidchi and Fricke 100).
4.2 Theorizing Futurity as Anticolonial Practice
Lindsay Martel Montgomery and Heather Law Pezzarossi develop the concept of Indigenous futurities as an anticolonial framework for writing about Native peoples and histories. They argue that scholars engaging with Indigenous futurisms challenge the taken-for-granted white settler future and replace colonial narratives with visions of thriving Indigenous cultures (Montgomery and Pezzarossi 330). Drawing on Grace Dillon, they organize the field around themes of contact, science, slipstream, and apocalypse. Futurity, in their account, is a way of thinking and acting that both defines and is defined by the perceived possibilities that shape the future. It refuses the imposition of settler temporalities and works toward stories of Indigenous autonomy and self-determination (Montgomery and Pezzarossi 331).
Figure 4. Core thematic elements of Indigenous Futurism. Sources: Dillon via Montgomery and Pezzarossi (2026); Lidchi and Fricke (2019).
🚀 FOUR THEMES OF INDIGENOUS FUTURISM
Re-imagining encounters between Indigenous and settler worlds on Indigenous terms.
Integrating Indigenous knowledge systems with technology and futurist speculation.
Blending multiple genres to resist settler narrative conventions.
Colonialism already was the apocalypse — survivance as the basis of futurism.
4.3 Decolonial Futures Grounded in Land Relations
Paradies's call for land-based relocalization and revitalized communalism supplies the material and ethical ground for these futurist imaginaries (Paradies 439). Indigenous Futurism is not an escape into fantasy. It is a practice of projecting futures in which land relations, kinship obligations, and technological capacity remain under Indigenous control rather than being subordinated to extractive or assimilative state projects.
Chapter 5: Technology after Colonialism: Data Sovereignty, AI, and the Digital Dimension of Indigenous Futurism
If Indigenous Futurism is to remain more than aesthetic speculation, it must address the digital infrastructures that increasingly mediate knowledge, governance, and economic life. Data and artificial intelligence have become new frontiers of colonial extraction.
5.1 Research Structures and Epistemic Sovereignty
Jenni Conrad's self-study of a research-practice partnership with Native education leaders on Coast Salish lands demonstrates that intentions of solidarity and reciprocity are insufficient without embedded structures of Indigenous sovereignty (Conrad 1594). Researcher actions consistent with those goals depended on accountability mechanisms that counteracted slippage into colonizing methods. Conrad shows that structures supporting Native sovereignty across multiple levels of a project create more reliable answerability than individual researcher stances alone (Conrad 1595). Her findings carry direct implications for any research or technological initiative that claims to serve Indigenous communities.
5.2 Intellectual Sovereignty as Indigenous Claim
Shrinkhal's broader argument that Indigenous sovereignty encompasses legal, social, economic, political, and cultural rights includes the right to control knowledge production and cultural expression (Shrinkhal 71–72). Intellectual and data sovereignty therefore form integral dimensions of the larger struggle against the empire of uniformity.
5.3 Technology as Decolonial Tool
Montgomery and Pezzarossi note that Indigenous Futurism embraces emergent technologies while refusing the settler assumption that technological progress necessarily advances colonial or capitalist ends (Montgomery and Pezzarossi 330). When technology is placed under Indigenous governance, it can become a means of renewing rather than erasing cultural continuity. In the Indian context this implies the development of Adivasi-controlled data infrastructures, community protocols for artificial intelligence training data, and research partnerships that institutionalize the principles of ownership, control, access, and possession.
💻 OCAP® PRINCIPLES — DATA SOVEREIGNTY FOR INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
Communities own their collective data and cultural information.
Communities control how data is collected, used, and shared.
Communities have the right to access their own data and information.
Physical control as the mechanism to protect sovereignty over data.
Chapter 6: Toward Terra Communis: An Indigenous Futurist Vision for Postcolonial India and Beyond
I conclude by synthesizing the preceding arguments and proposing a concrete horizon for thought and action.
The doctrine of terra nullius did not end with the British departure from India. It was absorbed into postcolonial developmentalism, conservation policy, and nationalist historiography that continued to treat Adivasi lands as residual spaces available for national purposes. Banner, Buchan and Heath, and Hendlin together show how legal fictions, liberal hierarchies, and conservation ideologies sustain this pattern. Rowe and Tuck, Paradies, and Bauder and Mueller supply the theoretical language for understanding settler colonialism and Westphalian sovereignty as ongoing structures rather than completed histories. Sen and Shrinkhal demonstrate the specific Indian manifestations of these dynamics, while Conrad, Lidchi and Fricke, and Montgomery and Pezzarossi illuminate the counter-practices of Indigenous research sovereignty and futurist imagination.
Against this inherited architecture I place the concept of terra communis advanced by Hendlin. Terra communis names land regimes grounded in communal stewardship, Indigenous rights, and reciprocal obligations rather than in the fiction of vacancy or the exclusivity of individual title (Hendlin 143). In India, the Forest Rights Act of 2006 represents the most significant legislative movement toward such a regime. By recognizing individual and community forest rights, including rights to protect and manage community forest resources, the Act begins to reverse the colonial presumption that forests belonged to the state alone. The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996 attempts to institutionalize forms of Indigenous self-governance at the village level. The Land Acquisition Act of 2013 introduces requirements of free, prior, and informed consent that echo the standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. None of these statutes fully realizes Indigenous sovereignty. Each remains constrained by the developmental priorities of the central state. Yet together they constitute partial legal realizations of the vision that Indigenous Futurism projects.
I therefore propose Adivasi Futurism as the Indian variant of the broader Indigenous Futurist movement. Adivasi Futurism would reclaim land, language, ritual, and technology as sites of self-determination. It would treat artificial intelligence and digital infrastructures not as inevitable instruments of extraction but as domains that can be governed according to community protocols. Practical steps include the adaptation of data sovereignty frameworks, such as the First Nations Information Governance Centre's principles of Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession, to the Indian constitutional and linguistic context. Research partnerships, state programs, and private technology initiatives that claim to serve Adivasi communities must embed structural accountability rather than relying on individual goodwill.
The ultimate horizon is not the restoration of a pure precolonial past, which is neither possible nor desirable. It is the construction of futures in which Indigenous presence is neither erased nor romanticized, but recognized as a continuing source of political, ecological, and technological innovation. Terra communis, grounded in the everyday practices of Adivasi communities and amplified by the imaginative resources of Indigenous Futurism, offers one name for that horizon. My hope is that this paper contributes to the scholarly and political work required to move toward it.
The ultimate horizon is not the restoration of a pure precolonial past, which is neither possible nor desirable. It is the construction of futures in which Indigenous presence is neither erased nor romanticized, but recognized as a continuing source of political, ecological, and technological innovation.
🌿 FROM TERRA NULLIUS TO TERRA COMMUNIS — THE JOURNEY
Terra Nullius
Colonial fiction of empty land — the origin of dispossession
Settler Colonialism
Ongoing structure — not event, but daily practice
Postcolonial India
Adivasi displacement through development and conservation
Adivasi Futurism
Counter-imagination of land, technology and sovereignty
Terra Communis
Communal stewardship, Indigenous rights, AI sovereignty
📚 SCHOLARS IN DIALOGUE
Terra nullius was a selective refusal to see Indigenous ownership — anomaly in British colonial practice.
Liberal savagery/civilization hierarchy gave moral cover to colonial land seizure.
Conservation reproduces neo-terra nullius; proposes terra communis as the alternative.
Settler colonialism is a present structure — even progressive disciplines can reproduce erasure.
Decoloniality demands land-based relocalization, communalism, and kinship with all life.
Westphalian vs. Indigenous sovereignty — two irreconcilable conceptions of political authority.
Andaman Islands: postcolonial terra nullius — settler colonial governmentality inside a postcolony.
Indigenous sovereignty confronts the empire of uniformity — source of self-determination rights.
Structural accountability — good intentions are insufficient without embedded sovereignty mechanisms.
Indigenous Futurisms use sci-fi to renew First Nations voices; survivance grounds futurist speculation.
Indigenous futurities as anticolonial practice — refusing settler temporalities for autonomous futures.
📚 Works Cited
Bauder, Harald, and Rebecca Mueller. "Westphalian Vs. Indigenous Sovereignty: Challenging Colonial Territorial Governance." Geopolitics, vol. 28, no. 1, 2023, pp. 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2021.1920577.
Buchan, Bruce, and Mary Heath. "Savagery and Civilization: From Terra Nullius to the 'Tide of History'." Ethnicities, vol. 6, no. 1, 2006, pp. 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796806061077.
Conrad, Jenni. "Structures for Indigenous Sovereignty in Research: Disrupting Settler Colonial Methods and Relations in Research Partnerships." Qualitative Research, vol. 23, no. 6, 2023, pp. 1594–1619. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221110178.
Hendlin, Yogi Hale. "From Terra Nullius to Terra Communis: Reconsidering Wild Land in an Era of Conservation and Indigenous Rights." Environmental Philosophy, vol. 11, no. 2, 2014, pp. 141–174. https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil20143205.
Lidchi, Henrietta, and Suzanne Newman Fricke. "Future History: Indigenous Futurisms in North American Visual Arts." World Art, vol. 9, no. 2, 2019, pp. 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/21500894.2019.1627675.
Montgomery, Lindsay Martel, and Heather Law Pezzarossi. "Indigenous Futurities: Theorizing Futurity in the Past and Present." American Anthropologist, vol. 128, 2026, pp. 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.70066.
Paradies, Yin. "Unsettling Truths: Modernity, (De-)Coloniality and Indigenous Futures." Postcolonial Studies, vol. 23, no. 4, 2020, pp. 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2020.1809069.
Rowe, Aimee Carrillo, and Eve Tuck. "Settler Colonialism and Cultural Studies: Ongoing Settlement, Cultural Production, and Resistance." Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, vol. 17, no. 1, 2017, pp. 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708616653693.
Sen, Uditi. "Developing Terra Nullius: Colonialism, Nationalism, and Indigeneity in the Andaman Islands." Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 59, no. 4, 2017, pp. 944–973. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417517000330.
Shrinkhal, Rashwet. "'Indigenous Sovereignty' and Right to Self-Determination in International Law: A Critical Appraisal." AlterNative, vol. 17, no. 1, 2021, pp. 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180121994681.
This blog is a formatted academic assignment on Terra Nullius, Indigenous Futurism, and Adivasi Rights | MKBU — Smt. S.B. Gardi, Department of English
No comments:
Post a Comment