Paper short abstract:

I examine how complex and shifting ideational claims on Himalayan geology have come to play a paramount role in ascribing value to sediments as well as classifying what sediments are of value.

Paper long abstract:

To the average geoengineers and hydrologists, sediment flows in the Himalayan rivers were erratic, regular, and unknowable, one of their constitutive elements being that they ruined lives and infrastructure, without any one geological force clearly being at fault. This disciplinary thought not only rendered geology governable but also the moving earth of the Himalayas measurable. But Himalayas are young active orogenic mountains, they are still moving upwards, and as a result, thrusting downwards. So, the theory of ‘value’ to reckon the nurturing levels of sedimentary flows proved rather difficult and gave rise to multiple levels of doubt about the accuracy of geological knowledge of sediments. Yet this calculative regime has become central to the political economy of the Himalayan geology. Here, I examine how complex and shifting ideational claims on Himalayan geology have come to play a paramount role in ascribing value to sediments as well as classifying what sediments are of value. Through geohistorical analysis, ethnography, paper research and interviews among the geo-hydro-scientists who collect sediment data, I explain the multiple modes and expressions in which geological forces of the Himalayas graft onto social forces thereby evoking future possibilities about extraction, politics, and environment.